# Case (Capacity - contact - inherent jurisdiction). NK v RK \[2023\] EWCOP 37

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/case-capacity-contact-inherent-jurisdiction-nk-v-rk-2023-ewcop-37/1809>\
**Category:** MHLO updates\
**Created:** [24 August 2023 21:13 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/case-capacity-contact-inherent-jurisdiction-nk-v-rk-2023-ewcop-37/1809 "2023-08-24T21:13:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MHLO](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/mhlo/32/24_2.png) [@MHLO](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/MHLO)\
**Post date:** [24 August 2023 21:13 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/case-capacity-contact-inherent-jurisdiction-nk-v-rk-2023-ewcop-37/1809/1 "2023-08-24T21:13:00Z")

</div>

— The family sought declarations: that R lacked capacity to make decisions about contact; that R was susceptible to undue influence, and measures needed to be put into place to protect her from this; that R lacked capacity to revoke LPAs. They sought orders: under the inherent jurisdiction in relation to supporting contact between her and her family (if R did have capacity about contact); and under either the MCA or the IJ that it was in R's best interests to implement a "supportive framework" around R to encourage her to repair and maintain her relationship with her immediate and wider family and friends.

* * *
Full details available at: [https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/NK\_v\_RK\_(2023)\_EWCOP\_37?id=240823-2100](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/NK_v_RK_(2023)_EWCOP_37?id=240823-2100)