At this year's Mental Capacity Act 2005 Annual Review Conference, Natalia Perrett and Emily Reed of Park Square Barristers delivered a thought provoking session on Assessing Capacity: The Role of Fact-Finding and the Relevance of Coercion and Control. Their presentation explored the complex relationship between coercive control, personal autonomy and mental capacity, with particular reference to Nottinghamshire County Council v JW & Anor [2026] EWCOP 13 (T2).

The intersection of coercive control and mental capacity

The case concerned JW, a 57-year-old woman with borderline intellectual functioning, whose local authority raised concerns that her husband was exercising coercive and controlling behaviour. The allegations included interference with her medical treatment, restrictions on access to care and support, and conduct that undermined her independence and autonomy.

A central question was whether JW’s difficulties in making decisions about her care, residence and contact with her husband arose from an impairment of the mind or brain, as required by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, or from the influence of her husband’s behaviour.

The court concluded that JW could understand, retain, use and weigh relevant information, and communicate her decisions. It was not satisfied that her condition amounted to a qualifying impairment for the purposes of the Act. Crucially, the necessary causal link between her intellectual functioning and an inability to make the relevant decisions had not been established.

Why fact-finding matters

The presentation highlighted the importance of considering whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary and proportionate. Where coercive control is alleged, examining the wider pattern of behaviour may be essential to understanding an individual's circumstances and informing decisions about their welfare.

However, allegations alone do not automatically justify a fact-finding hearing. The court must consider whether the proposed findings will materially assist in determining the issues before it, taking into account proportionality, cost and the potential impact of delay.

The discussion also reinforced an important distinction: coercive control may undermine a person's autonomy without necessarily establishing that they lack mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Capacity must be assessed in relation to the particular decision, with clear evidence linking any inability to decide to an impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.

Practical implications for practitioners

Three key lessons emerge from the case:

• Look beyond the diagnosis: A diagnosis or intellectual impairment does not automatically establish incapacity. Each decision requires an individual assessment.
• Demand clarity on causation: Expert evidence must explain how an identified impairment causes the specific inability to make the decision in question.
• Consider the appropriate protective framework: Where a vulnerable adult's autonomy is undermined by coercion or undue influence, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction may offer a relevant avenue of protection, even where the person retains mental capacity.

Conclusion

The session by Natalia Perrett and Emily Reed offered valuable insight into the challenges faced by practitioners navigating the crossing of coercive control and mental capacity. Nottinghamshire County Council v JW & Anor [2026] demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between an inability to make a decision because of an impairment of the mind or brain and the impact of another person's controlling behaviour.

Ultimately, protecting vulnerable adults requires a careful balance between safeguarding individuals from abuse and respecting their autonomy. Rigorous capacity assessments, proportionate fact-finding and consideration of the appropriate legal framework remain essential to achieving that balance.

With thanks to Natalia Perrett and Emily Reed of Park Square Barristers for their insightful presentation at the MCA Switalskis Conference. Special mention to our Nichola Burridge-Todd of our Court of Protection team who acted as ALR for JW throughout the proceedings.