Category:Deputyship cases
This is a new category so some deputyship cases will still be found in Category:Other capacity cases
The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation Ltd v KS [2025] EWCOP 7 (T2) —
Jurisdiction over minor with foreign habitual residence "This matter concerns a young person under 16 years of age, who has substantial assets in England. Her appointed property and affairs deputy has applied for specific authorities in respect of expenditure from her funds. Her litigation friend contends that the Court of Protection has no jurisdiction to determine the application, and the deputyship appointment should be discharged. The jurisdiction question arises because, as all parties agree, KS is now habitually resident in India." Essex search<mw:editsection page="Category:Deputyship cases" section="1">Essex search</mw:editsection>This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters: | 2025-02-23 | 2025 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Re AECO [2025] EWCOP 5 (T2) —
Discharge of deputyship The public guardian asked the court to revoke the appointment of AECO's mother as property and affairs deputy on the basis that she had contravened her authority and that for her to continue would not be in AECO's best interests.
Essex search<mw:editsection page="Category:Deputyship cases" section="1">Essex search</mw:editsection>This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:<p style="padding: 5px;background-color:
| 2025-02-10 | 2025 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Brassington v Knights Professional Services Ltd [2023] EWHC 1568 (Ch) —
Deputyship and employment dispute The claimant solicitor had been a salaried partner at the defendant law firm. When she resigned, the firm for the first time sought payment of £211,632.76 so-called "work in progress" which had accumulated over six years, of which £166,468.97 was for time costs which had been disallowed by the SCCO in deputyship cases (it was the firm's practice never to write off these costs). The firm relied on badly drafted engagement letters to argue that she, rather than "P", was their client (stating in litigation that "Knights has no duty or obligation to the various patients whom Katie accepted responsibility for") and that she was personally liable to the firm for all unpaid fees. The court had no hesitation in deciding that that she had been contracting solely as deputy, and as agent, for "P", and had accepted no personal liability: summary judgment was given in her favour. | 2023-07-03 | 2023 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Riddle v Parker Rhodes Hickmott Solicitors [2022] EWCOP 18 —
Remuneration of deputy The professional, non-legally-qualified deputy argued that the volume of work, given the size and complexity of the estate, would not adequately be met by the limited local authority rates set out in PD 19B. The court dismissed his appeal, noting that costs which run close to or even exceed the fixed fees constraint do not necessarily establish a basis for an SCCO assessment.
EssexThis case has been summarised on page 18 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 123, June 2022).
<p style="padding: ..→ | 2022-07-25 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Calderdale MBC v AB [2021] EWCOP 56 —
Deputyship and direct payments The judge agreed with the local authority's uncontested position that the authority granted by the standard property and affairs deputyship order did not make the deputy an 'authorised person' for the purposes of s32(4)(a) Care Act 2014 ('Adults without capacity to request direct payments').
EssexThis case has been summarised on page 18 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 117, November 2021). | 2021-11-02 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Sunil Kambli v Public Guardian [2021] EWCOP 53 —
Replacement of deputy The third panel deputy in this case sought discharge of his appointment on the same basis as the first two: a breakdown in relations with family members, particularly the father of MBR. Initially his request was refused but on reconsideration it was granted. It was not in MBR's best interests for the deputyship to continue: aspects of managing his financial affairs which should be straightforward would be drawn out and acrimonious, costs would be higher than necessary, and it would cause household stress (other considerations were the deputy's withdrawal of consent and the father's inappropriate behaviour). Rather than appoint a fourth panel deputy, two relatives were appointed despite the lack of experience and indemnity insurance: they were appointed jointly, for one accounting period initially, with £400,000 security, authority to sell property or withdraw from investments excluded, and a requirement ..→ | 2021-09-24 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Re KC: LCR v SC [2020] EWCOP 62 —
Whether to register LPAs (1) The three-stage test in Re J [2010] MHLO 167 (COP) for revocation of an LPA was applied to LPA registration in this case: the LPAs were not registered as the acrimonious relationship among the donees would prevent them from acting in KC's best interests. (2) a panel deputy for property and affairs was appointed, but no personal welfare deputy.
<div ..→Essex search<mw:editsection page="Category:Deputyship cases" section="1">Essex search</mw:editsection>This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters: | 2020-12-12 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Essex County Council v CVF [2020] EWCOP 65 —
Care, and deputyship The court dealt with three issues: (1) the amount of care and support CVF needed; (2) whether the local authority should replace CVF's mother, JF, as property and affairs deputy (yes); (3) whether JF should be appointed as personal welfare deputy (no).
Essex search<mw:editsection page="Category:Deputyship cases" section="1">Essex search</mw:editsection>This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:
<p style="padding: ..→ | 2020-12-12 | 2020 cases, Best interests, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Re ACC [2020] EWCOP 9 —
Deputies and litigation This case concerned whether, and in what circumstances, a property and affairs deputy can recover from the protected person’s assets costs which have been or are likely to be incurred in legal proceedings. The applicant deputies from Irwin Mitchell wanted to know when a professional deputy may instruct a legal firm with which it is associated and recover the costs from P. The court gave detailed guidance, including a summary of conclusions in an appendix. Appendix: Summary of conclusions1. The “general” authority to manage property and affairs which is granted by the standard deputyship order encompasses those common or ordinary tasks which are required to administer P’s estate efficiently. [paragraphs 46 - 48] 2. Authority to make a decision / do an act in respect of P’s property and affairs encompasses such ordinary non-contentious legal tasks, including ..→ | 2020-07-03 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| NKR v The Thomson Snell And Passmore Trust Corporation Ltd [2019] EWCOP 15 —
Appointment of property and affairs deputy "The application before the Court is for the discharge of the appointment of an existing professional property and affairs deputy, and the appointment of another instead. The discharge of the current deputy is agreed but there is an issue as to who should be appointed instead. ... In the matter of Re AS; SH v LC [2012] MHLO 113 (COP), [2013] COPLR 29 at paragraph 22 Senior Judge Lush set out "generally speaking" an order for preference of various candidates for appointment as deputy. A panel deputy is included "as deputy of last resort," after "a professional adviser, such as the family's solicitor or accountant." ... I am not aware of any previous appointments of a barrister as professional deputy (as distinct from a family member who just happens to be a barrister by profession but is appointed on the usual non-remunerated basis of a family member). Not being considered by the ..→ | 2019-04-18 | 2019 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| PBC v JMA [2018] EWCOP 19 —
Gifts "PBC is the son of JMA, and was appointed as her sole attorney for property and affairs by a Lasting Power of Attorney ... He seeks the authority of the Court to make from JMA’s estate various gifts together exceeding £7 million. The purpose of such gifting, openly stated from the outset of the application, is to achieve - as long as JMA lives at least a further 3 years - reduction of inheritance tax liabilities. The parties have reached an agreement between themselves. Together, they ask the Court to make orders to give effect to their agreement. The matter was listed for hearing because the Court sought assistance in order to reach a conclusion as to whether or not the terms of that agreement are in the best interests of JMA." Essex search<mw:editsection page="Category:Deputyship cases" section="1">Essex search</mw:editsection>This ..→ | 2018-09-02 | 2018 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Re AR [2018] EWCOP 8 —
Deputy - remuneration "The main reason why this application has been transferred to me is that it raises issues relating to the validity of the orders relied on by Mr Cawthorn to enable him to charge remuneration as a deputy."
CitationsAppeared on Bailii initially as [2018] EWCOP B8Not on Bailii!.Essex search<mw:editsection page="Category:Deputyship cases" section="1">Essex search</mw:editsection>This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:
<p ..→ | 2018-04-09 | 2018 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Bunting v W [2005] EWHC 1274 (Ch) — "By the Application the Receiver seeks an order against the Respondent, to whom I shall refer as ("Mr W") that the accounts he delivered in his capacity as Receiver of M for the year ending 21st April 1994 and thereafter annually until year ending 21st April 2002 be re-opened or set aside. The application further seeks an order that Mr W deliver fresh accounts verified by affidavit, identifying (amongst other matters) the funds or assets of M used directly or indirectly for the personal benefit of Mr W or his family; that the Receiver be given permission to raise objections and further inquiries as to whether or not Mr W is to be entitled to charge remuneration for the services of himself and his wife in caring for or attending on M and an order that he should pay into the Court of Protection such sums as may be found due on taking the accounts and inquiries. In the event that there is a jurisdictional impediment to an order for payment into court the Receiver seeks an order ..→ | 2017-11-26 | 2005 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re RP [2016] EWCOP 1 —
Deputyship "This is a dispute about the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs ..."
Essex search<mw:editsection page="Category:Deputyship cases" section="1">Essex search</mw:editsection>This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:Full judgment: ..→ | 2016-08-29 | 2016 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Re A: C v D [2016] EWCOP 3 —
Deputyship "This is a contested application for the appointment of a new deputy for property and affairs and a new trustee."
Essex search<mw:editsection page="Category:Deputyship cases" section="1">Essex search</mw:editsection>This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:Full ..→ | 2016-08-29 | 2016 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| A Local Authority v M [2015] EWCOP 69, [2015] MHLO 135 — This judgment dealt with various issues including deputyship, deprivation of liberty, and disclosure. | 2016-02-08 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript |
| Re JW [2015] EWCOP 82, [2015] MHLO 126 — "This began as an application by a family member to be appointed as a joint deputy for property and affairs with the existing deputy, East Sussex County Council. When it became apparent that the Council was unwilling to act jointly with him, the applicant revised his application and asked the court to remove the Council as deputy and to appoint him in its place. ... I propose to allow Geoffrey's revised application and shall appoint him as Joan's deputy in place of East Sussex County Council. My main reason for appointing him is that I think it would be sensible to repair and renovate the house in Hailsham that Joan inherited from her daughter Daphne so that it can be sold to best advantage, and I am prepared to give it a try. ... Zena Boniface concluded her witness statement by saying that: 'ESCC feel that it would be a conflict of interest for Geoffrey to be appointed deputy, as he stands to make a financial gain from the cost of the building works to his late sister's property and ..→ | 2015-12-22 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re AS [2015] EWCOP 79, [2015] MHLO 124 — "This is YB's application to be appointed as AS's deputy for property and affairs in place of the existing deputy, the London Borough of Islington. ... I have decided to maintain the status quo and to dismiss this application." | 2015-12-22 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re FT [2015] EWCOP 49, [2015] MHLO 120 — "This is an application for reconsideration of an order made by an authorised court officer appointing two of FT's daughters as his deputies for property and affairs. ... In my judgment, the factor of magnetic importance in this case is that FT named MA and PB to be the executors of his last will ... Accordingly, pursuant to rule 89(5), I affirm the order made on 2 September 2014 appointing the respondents [MA and PB] jointly and severally to act as FT's deputies for property and affairs. ... Costs ... I am singularly unimpressed with the applicants' conduct. Having made the application, they failed to follow it through. ... This is a case in which a departure from the general rule is justified. ... [T]he fact that [DC's] husband is in receipt of ESA and that she has claimed an exemption from the fees, doesn't grant her immunity from an order for costs being made against her. I intend to make an order that the costs are to be assessed on the standard basis and paid by DC, ST and TT in ..→ | 2015-12-22 | 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Ross v A [2015] EWCOP 46, [2015] MHLO 118 — "This is an application by a professional deputy for an order authorising him to apply approximately £17,000 a year from A's damages award towards the payment of her brother's school fees. ... In my judgment, it is in A's best interests for the court to authorise the deputy to pay B's school fees (past, present and future) from her funds ... This judgment is tailored to A's circumstances and should not be construed as an imprimatur for the payment of siblings' school fees from damages awards in other cases." | 2015-12-21 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| GN v Newland [2015] EWCOP 43, [2015] MHLO 116 — "This is an application for reconsideration of an order made on the papers by an authorised court officer ('ACO'). An ACO is not a judge of the Court of Protection, but a civil servant, who, in most cases, has considerable experience of the court's practice and procedure and is authorised to make a number of specified decisions on the non-contentious property and affairs side of the court's business. Over 90% of the applications to the court involve non-contentious property and financial matters, and can potentially be dealt with by an ACO. ... I dismiss GN's application to be appointed as his mother's deputy for three reasons. First, he is the bane of her life and she wants nothing to do with him. Secondly, he would be unable to act fairly and competently on her behalf because he has an interest in her property, which is adverse to hers, and on which he is unwilling to enter into any compromise. And thirdly, I am satisfied that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, Julia ..→ | 2015-12-21 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re P [2015] EWCOP 37, [2015] MHLO 111 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') on the grounds that, having regard to all the circumstances, H is unsuitable to be his wife's attorney. ... Therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, I am satisfied that H is unsuitable to be P's attorney and I shall by order revoke the EPA. I shall also make a separate order appointing S and D jointly and severally to be P's deputies for property and affairs." | 2015-12-21 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript |
| Re X [2015] EWCOP 36, [2015] MHLO 110 — "These proceedings are concerned with X, a young man of 25 who currently lives in a care home. They began as an application by his mother, AY (who is his appointed welfare deputy and has acted throughout without the benefit of legal representation), in respect of his prescribed medication. X was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act and the issues before the Court were redefined to address AY's concerns as to X's physical health (in particular, the condition of his bowels) and whether the treatment she supported, in the form of dietary exclusion and supplements, fell within the powers of the Mental Health Act or the authority of her deputyship. In the course of proceedings, X has been discharged from detention under the Mental Health Act and the parties have been able to agree a community placement for him, where he is now settled. The issues which remain for the determination of the Court relate to his best interests in relation to diet and whether the welfare deputyship ..→ | 2015-12-21 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| L v NG [2015] EWCOP 34, [2015] MHLO 97 — Headnote from judgment: "Application by the sister of NG to be appointed as his deputy for property and affairs together with her sons – Even if NG lacked capacity to manage his property and affairs it was not in his best interests to appoint a deputy to manage his property and affairs." The main part of the decision is the following: "Section 16(4) of the Act provides that when deciding whether it is in the relevant person's interests to appoint a deputy, the court must have regard to section 4 (best interests) and the principle that a decision by the court is to be preferred to the appointment of a deputy to make a decision. The fact that a person generally lacks capacity to manage their property and affairs does not automatically mean that it is in their best interests to appoint a deputy to manage their property and affairs. The best interests requirements of section 4 require the court to consider the wishes, feelings, beliefs and values of the person concerned. One of the ..→ | 2015-11-13 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
| Re HS [2015] EWCOP 33, [2015] MHLO 96 — "I have been asked to reconsider two orders I made on the papers. The first was an order dated 29 October 2014 revoking HS's Enduring Power of Attorney and the second was an order made on 10 December 2014 appointing Essex County Council to be HS's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015-11-13 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re AFR [2015] EWCOP 73, [2015] MHLO 93 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to discharge two joint and several deputies for property and affairs on the grounds that they have behaved in a way that has contravened their authority or is not in their father's best interests." | 2015-11-12 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Tricker v Church [2013] EWCOP 2, [2013] MHLO 152 — The application for an order to enforce the receiver's security bonds was rejected, and costs were to be paid by the applicant personally. | 2015-11-04 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
| Re H [2015] EWCOP 52, [2015] MHLO 89 — "There are two provisions in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ('MCA') that seem to contradict each other. Section 16(4)(b) envisages that a deputyship appointment will be of limited duration, whereas section 19(5) facilitates an appointment that could last for decades. ... When it comes to the crunch, section 16(4)(b) trumps section 19(5) because it is a principle to which the court must have regard when deciding whether it in P's best interests to appoint a deputy, while section 19(5) is simply a discretion conferred upon the court, once it has decided to appoint a deputy." | 2015-10-31 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re GMP [2015] EWCOP 67, [2015] MHLO 83 — "This is an objection to an application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs." | 2015-10-31 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re RG [2015] EWCOP 66, [2015] MHLO 82 — "This is an application by Northamptonshire County Council for the court to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') and to appoint a professional deputy to manage the donor's property and affairs in place of the attorney." | 2015-10-31 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript |
| Re MLJ [2015] EWCOP 63, [2015] MHLO 80 — "This is a contested application for the appointment of an additional deputy to act jointly with the existing deputy for property and affairs." | 2015-10-31 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re AJ [2015] EWCOP 62, [2015] MHLO 79 — "This is an application by the respondent for the court to reconsider two orders that were made on the papers. The first order discharged him as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs and the second order appointed a panel deputy to act in his place." | 2015-10-31 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re PAW [2015] EWCOP 57, [2015] MHLO 68 — "This is a contested application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs." | 2015-09-30 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| DGP Law v DGHP [2015] EWCOP 58, [2015] MHLO 67 — "This is a reconsideration of a decision made on the papers on 16 February 2015 by District Judge Bellamy, who dismissed the respondents' objections to the applicant's application to be appointed as her mother's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015-09-30 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re ME [2015] EWCOP 61, [2015] MHLO 64 — "This is an objection to an application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs." | 2015-09-30 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re HC: Public Guardian v CC [2015] EWCOP 29, [2015] MHLO 55 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order under section 16(8) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 revoking the appointment of a deputy because he has behaved in a way that contravenes the authority conferred on him by the court or is not in the best interests of the person for whom he acts as deputy." | 2015-07-20 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Donna v Martin [2015] EWCOP 23, [2015] MHLO 31 — "This is an application under rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 inviting me to reconsider an order I made on the papers on 27 November 2014. As this is a case in which there is a dispute as to who should act as a deputy, I am required ... to publish this judgment." | 2015-03-29 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re CJ: Public Guardian v MP [2015] EWCOP 21, [2015] MHLO 30 — "This is a reconsideration of a decision made on the papers on 4 November 2104 by District Judge S. E. Rogers, who made an order: (a) revoking the respondent's appointment as his partner's deputy for property and affairs; and (b) inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed as deputy in his place. ... I am absolutely certain that there has been no dishonest misappropriation of CJ's funds by MP, but that's not the point. ... To turn a blind eye to MP's wilful refusal to comply with his duties would erode and undermine the safeguarding work carried out by the OPG's supervision and compliance teams, which cannot possibly be in the public interest. It would also ride roughshod over the court's obligations under international human rights law to ensure that the protective measures it makes contain appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 12.4. ... Accordingly, I confirm District Judge Rogers' ..→ | 2015-03-26 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re AW [2015] EWCOP 16, [2015] MHLO 27 — "These are competing applications by DB and DW to be appointed as AW's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015-03-24 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re PL (Objection Hearing) [2015] EWCOP 14, [2015] MHLO 25 — "This is an objection by PL's daughters to his son's application to be appointed as his deputy for property and affairs." | 2015-03-24 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re BM [2014] EWCOP B20, [2014] MHLO 131 — "This is a case in which there is a dispute as to who should be appointed as BM’s deputy for property and affairs." | 2014-12-31 | 2014 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| Re PMB [2014] EWCOP 42, [2014] MHLO 108 — "This is a dispute amongst siblings over the appointment of a deputy to manage their mother's financial affairs." | 2014-11-06 | 2014 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript |
| LB Haringey v CM [2014] EWCOP B23 —
Non-family financial deputy "This is an objection by a family member to the London Borough of Haringey's application to be appointed as GW's deputy for property and affairs. ... I allow Haringey's application and dismiss CM's objection, and shall make an order appointing the authorised officer of Haringey Council as GW's deputy for property and affairs on the understanding that it is in GW's best interests, and less restrictive of his rights and freedom of action, for him to retain control over his own expenditure to a limit of £200 a week. I am surprised that CM persisted with her application to manage her uncle's property and finances after he had expressed such trenchant opposition to her in his interview with the Special Visitor. ... Nevertheless, GW's views have not always been consistent and this matter was listed for an attended hearing on 22 May 2014, anyway, and in the circumstances I see no reason to depart from the ..→ | 2014-06-10 | 2014 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Baker v H [2009] EWCOP B31 — {{Case
|Date=2009/10/15 |NCN=[2009] EWCOP B31M |Other citations=[2009] EWHC B31 (COP)B, (2009) 12 CCL Rep 695, [2010] 1 WLR 1103B, [2009] WTLR 1719, [2009] EWHC B31 (Fam)B |Court=Court of Protection |Judges=Hazel Marshall |Parties=Niall Baker, H, Official Solicitor |Sentence=Deputy security bonds |Summary=(1) The judgment sets out a structured general approach to considering the setting of security and its interplay with the terms of appointment of a deputy; (2) On the facts, the level of security was reduced from £750k to £175k. |Detail===Extract from judgment== Summary of general guidance 106. In final summary, then, I set out below what is, in my judgment, a properly structured general approach to considering the setting of security and its interplay with the terms of appointment of a deputy. It largely follows the order of the factors which I have set out above. I do so with grateful acknowledgement to the argument of Mr Rees as amicus curiae, on whose submissions it is based. It can be taken as a useful executive summary guide, whilst bearing in mind that it is only a [words missing from transcript] (1) If the Court has real doubts about whether a deputy can be trusted with P’s assets, then it must consider not appointing him as a deputy. Alternatively (if this will largely allay such doubts) the court can and should consider imposing limits on the funds under the deputy’s control and, in particular, should consider whether the general words of the order appointing the deputy should be narrowed to prevent his having any authority to deal with any property occupied by P as his home, (or any interest of P therein) without further order of the court. (2) The court should then consider the amount of funds that are to be placed in the deputy’s hands or under his control, and envisage the costs and/or loss to P if there were to be a total default by the deputy. (3) The court should then consider whether the deputy carries professional indemnity insurance which would be effective to replace P’s assets in his hands in the event of such a total default. This will include reviewing such matters as the level of aggregation of assets in the hands of a single deputy relative to his insurance. (4) In the absence of adequate insurance cover then the starting point will be the value of the assets in or passing through the deputy’s hands. This consideration may lead back to a review of the terms of the deputyship order with a view to limiting the value of the vulnerable assets. (5) Where the deputy apparently has adequate and effective professional indemnity insurance, then the court
[(6)] Having formed the above provisional view as to the appropriate level of security, the court should finally consider the level of premium and whether this would cause P undue financial hardship, or would otherwise in all the circumstances (including the apparent status of the deputy) appear to be an unjustifiable or wasteful use of P’s resources, when balanced against the benefit of having that security. Special circumstances (eg husband/wife deputyships, or lay deputies of obvious stature, or situations in which the real risk would appear to be merely negligence rather than total default) may mitigate this, but must provide some real justification for taking the view that such a level of security is not reasonably necessary. The court will then decide whether it is in P’s best interests to maintain the level of security originally assessed, or to reduce it to any extent. | 2009-11-09 | 2009 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| Re S and S (Protected Persons): C v V [2008] EWCOP B16 — {{Case
|Date=2008/11/25 |NCN=[2008] EWCOP B16M |Other citations=[2008] EWHC B16 (Fam)B, [2010] 1 WLR 1082B, [2009] LS Law Medical 97, [2009] WTLR 315 |Court=Court of Protection |Judges=Hazel Marshall |Parties=C, V, S |Sentence=Best interests and powers of attorney |Summary=(1) Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, there is a presumption in favour of implementing P's wishes unless they are irrational, impractical, or irresponsible (with reference to resources), or there is a sufficiently countervailing consideration. (2) The appointment of donees jointly (rather than jointly and severally) under a power of attorney created the presumption that the donors wanted decisions made jointly or by neither appointee. (3) Mr and Mrs S's wishes (that if both daughters were unable to act jointly then neither should act singly) would be implemented, and an independent Deputy would be appointed. |Detail===Thanks== Thanks to Barbara Rich (5 Stone Buildings) for providing the judgment. | 2009-02-22 | 2008 cases, Best interests, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
Article titles
The following 45 pages are in this category.
B
R
- Re A: C v D (2016) EWCOP 3
- Re ACC (2020) EWCOP 9
- Re AECO (2025) EWCOP 5 (T2)
- Re AFR (2015) EWCOP 73, (2015) MHLO 93
- Re AJ (2015) EWCOP 62, (2015) MHLO 79
- Re AR (2018) EWCOP 8
- Re AS (2015) EWCOP 79, (2015) MHLO 124
- Re AW (2015) EWCOP 16, (2015) MHLO 27
- Re BM (2014) EWCOP B20, (2014) MHLO 131
- Re CJ: Public Guardian v MP (2015) EWCOP 21, (2015) MHLO 30
- Re FT (2015) EWCOP 49, (2015) MHLO 120
- Re GMP (2015) EWCOP 67, (2015) MHLO 83
- Re H (2015) EWCOP 52, (2015) MHLO 89
- Re HC: Public Guardian v CC (2015) EWCOP 29, (2015) MHLO 55
- Re HS (2015) EWCOP 33, (2015) MHLO 96
- Re JW (2015) EWCOP 82, (2015) MHLO 126
- Re KC: LCR v SC (2020) EWCOP 62
- Re ME (2015) EWCOP 61, (2015) MHLO 64
- Re MLJ (2015) EWCOP 63, (2015) MHLO 80
- Re P (2015) EWCOP 37, (2015) MHLO 111
- Re PAW (2015) EWCOP 57, (2015) MHLO 68
- Re PL (Objection Hearing) (2015) EWCOP 14, (2015) MHLO 25
- Re PMB (2014) EWCOP 42, (2014) MHLO 108
- Re RG (2015) EWCOP 66, (2015) MHLO 82
- Re RP (2016) EWCOP 1
- Re S and S (Protected Persons): C v V (2008) EWCOP B16
- Re X (2015) EWCOP 36, (2015) MHLO 110
- Riddle v Parker Rhodes Hickmott Solicitors (2022) EWCOP 18
- Ross v A (2015) EWCOP 46, (2015) MHLO 118
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: