London Borough of Hounslow v A Father & Mother (Costs in the Court of Protection - Disproportionate litigation)  EWCOP 23
Costs were awarded against the LA after a dispute in which the LA alleged the mother had mismanaged the P's funds.
Application by the P's son to receive authority from the court to make gifts from the P's estate in the sum of £7m. The authorisation was granted.
Application against various costs orders made against the applicant in relation to the P, his late aunt. The application was dismissed.
Application by P's son for retrospective approval of gifts of money paid from P's accounts to or for the benefit of the Applicant. Approval was given for a portion of the sum paid.
The Applicant, who holds an EPA and LPA for heath and welfare, withdrew funds totalling over £88,000 from the bank accounts. He was applying for retrospective approval for these withdrawals, while his estranged brother was against the approval being given.
The Court approved a total of just over £72,000.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Application for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 granting retrospective ratification of a gift of £324,000 from the Patient, being a potentially exempt transfer for the purposes of inheritance tax (IHT). The application was refused.
Application for the revocation of both LPAs after the attorneys used the Patient's money to buy a property. The LPA PA was revoked, the LPA HW was not.
Case in which the court had to decide who was reponsible for costs incurred as a result of the successful application by the PG to have the attorneys' LPA for property and financial affairs revoked. The attorneys were ordered to share their own costs.
Appeal against the making of a statutory will which divided the Patient's estate between the two sons in the ratio 25:75. The appeal was allowed.
This case concerns an application by the Public Guardian (‘PG’) to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’) for property and affairs.
This case concerned long-running proceedings relating to a young man aged 26, M, and had been ongoing for two years. His parents E and A, whilst the court found they greatly loved their son, had, in an earlier judgment of Baker J, (Re M  EWCOP 33] found that whilst M had ASD and a learning disability, his parents had fabricated his reaction to an MMR vaccination. They had claimed it had caused autism in M and had given many fabricated accounts as to his health, caused M to be subjected to unnecessary tests and interventions, failed in relation to dental treatment to obtain treatment and E as M’s deputy had controlled all aspects of his life and restricted access to him by number of professionals. The court found that these behaviours amounted to factitious disorder imposed on others and additionally E had a combination of personality disorders – narcissistic, histrionic and emotionally unstable.
The key issues in this judgment focused upon the identity of the deputy, deprivation of liberty, disclosure and publication of information relating to proceedings and some miscellaneous issues.
Case summaries & Editor's comments on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Get the latest cases & news delivered to your inbox with our free email updates.