Interim relief and interim hearingsInterim reliefInterim hearingsInterim reliefInterim hearingsInterim reliefInterim hearingsInterim reliefInterim injunctionInterim hearingsInterim reliefInterim injunctionInterim hearingsInterim reliefInterim injunctionInterim hearingsInterim reliefInterim injunctionInterim hearings
10.58On very many occasions that the court is considering making directions, it will also be considering what interim declarations or decisions are required to ‘hold the ring’ prior to the determination of the underlying application before it. For instance, in welfare cases, it will usually be necessary for the court to make interim declarations and decisions as to where P should live and with whom they should have contact prior to the final hearing. In property and affairs cases, it will very often be necessary to identify on an interim basis who should administer P’s assets so as to secure them prior to a final determination of the application.
10.59In some situations, especially those urgent ones discussed further at para 10.65 below, the primary focus of the hearing will be to consider the question of interim relief. As discussed at the outset, such hearings should technically be called interim hearings. Even in such hearings, though, the court is very likely to make directions as to the further consideration of the issues that have arisen or matters that flow in consequence of the decisions made.
10.60Whenever interim relief is sought during the course of proceedings, the process for doing so is the same as set out above at paras 10.21–10.25 in relation to seeking directions.
10.61The court has the power to enforce its interim decisions. Enforcement is dealt with at chapter 17 below, but in addition to the general powers granted the court under MCA 2005 s48, COPR r82 confirms that the court has the power to grant an interim injunction, an interim declaration or any other interim order it considers appropriate.
10.62Any order for an interim injunction must set out clearly what the person to be subject to the injunction must or must not do. The courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of clarity in this regard, together with the importance of ensuring that any injunction must not require the person subject to it to cross-refer to other material so as to understand their obligations: see, in particular, the comments of Munby LJ in
Re X and Y (children).
1[2012] EWCA Civ 1500, [2013] Fam Law 148 at paras 61–63. See also Re Whiting [2013] EWHC B27 (Fam), [2014] COPLR 107 at para 12(7).10.63Judges will usually seek, at least at the outset of proceedings, not to make injunctions (for instance) restricting contact between P and family members, but rather to seek undertakings from the family members in question to abide by contact restrictions. Negotiating the terms of such undertakings will often represent some of the most important, if difficult, work done outside court at the hearing. It may not always be appropriate to proceed in such a way, most obviously if the proposed subject of the restriction is not present at the hearing; indeed, if they are represented but not actually present, some judges will not accept an undertaking because they consider it necessary to accept the undertaking personally from the individual and to explain its significance.
10.64PD 10B provides that an interim injunction can be varied or discharged by any judge of the Court of Protection.
2PD 10B para 16. In other words, it is not necessary that the matter be brought back before the same judge, or even the same level of judge. It is important to note, however, that an appeal against a decision to grant an injunction must follow the usual appeal routes
3See chapter 18. – in other words, a district judge could consider an application to vary an injunction granted by a High Court judge, but could not consider the basis upon which it was granted in the first instance.