View source for ET v JP (2018) EWHC 685 (Ch)

{{Case
|Date=2018/03/28
|NCN=[2018] EWHC 685 (Ch)
|ICLR=[2018] WLR(D) 193
|ICLR ID=2018000757
|Other citations=[2018] 2 P & CR DG8, [2018] COPLR 420, [2018] 3 WLR 44, [2018] Ch 565, [2018] 2 P &CR DG8, [2018] 3 All ER 469, [2018] WTLR 109
|Court=High Court (Chancery Division)
|Judges=Morgan
|Parties=ET, JP
|Sentence=Variation of Trusts Act
|Summary="This judgment deals with one point which arose in the course of an application for the court's approval to a variation of a trust pursuant to the Variation of Trusts Act 1958. ... The way in which section 1 of the 1958 Act operates can be summarised as follows: (1) In the case of an adult beneficiary who has capacity within section 2(1) of the 2005 Act, the adult can decide for himself whether to agree to a proposed variation of a trust and the court has no power to give approval on his behalf; (2) In the case of an adult beneficiary who does not have capacity within section 2(1) of the 2005 Act to agree to the variation of a trust, the court has power to give approval on his behalf but the question as to whether the variation is for his benefit is decided by the Court of Protection rather than by the High Court; (3) In the case of a minor beneficiary, the minor does not have capacity (by reason of being a minor) to decide for himself whether to agree a proposed variation of a trust and the court has power to give approval on his behalf. The question then arises: what is the position of a minor beneficiary who, by reason of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain would not have capacity for the purposes of section 2(1) of the 2005 Act to make decisions for himself in relation to certain matters? Is such a minor within section 1(3) of the 1958 Act so that the question as to whether a variation of a trust would be for his benefit is to be determined by the Court of Protection rather than by the High Court? If that question had to be referred to the Court of Protection and that court determined that the variation was for the benefit of the minor, the matter would then have to return to the High Court for it to give its approval to the variation under section 1 of the 1958 Act."
|External links=[http://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2018000757/casereport_f925fb46-8afc-49d0-8278-c5896d407fbe/html ICLR]
|Subject=Other capacity cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2019/03/23 11:26:50 AM
}}