Banks v Banks [1999]

1. Facts:

• In Banks v Banks, the case involved a woman suffering from manic depressive disorder, which affected her behaviour.

• Her husband sought an injunction to prevent her from certain actions, but the request was denied.

• The court found that issuing an order would be ineffective because the woman could not control her behaviour due to her mental health condition.

2. Outcome:

• The county court ruled that an injunction was impractical and would not address the underlying issues related to the woman's condition.

• The court’s decision was based on the understanding that the woman’s behaviour was not controllable due to her mental health issues, and thus ordering her to stop certain actions would not serve a practical purpose.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Effectiveness of Injunctions: The case highlights the limitations of injunctions when dealing with individuals whose behaviour is influenced by serious mental health conditions. The court’s decision underscores that injunctions may not be effective if the individual cannot control their actions due to their condition.

• Comparative Context - Alcohol Abuse: This decision raises questions about similar situations involving substance abuse, such as alcoholism. In cases where behaviour is influenced by substance abuse, injunctions might also be challenged on grounds of practicality and effectiveness, especially if the behaviour cannot be controlled by the individual.

• Mental Health Considerations: The ruling emphasises the need to consider mental health conditions in legal decisions. It suggests that the court should take into account whether the person’s behaviour can be managed or controlled when deciding on the suitability of injunctions or other legal remedies.

• Precedent Value: As a county court decision, Banks v Banks does not have strong precedential value but provides important insights into how courts might approach cases involving mental health. It reflects a nuanced understanding that legal orders may need to be adapted to the practical realities of the individual’s condition.

• Broader Implications: The case may influence how courts approach similar cases involving mental health or addiction issues, suggesting that practical effectiveness and the individual's ability to comply should be considered when making legal orders.