The Judge ruled that the High Court was the appropriate court. On the literal reading of s1(3) of the 1958 Act taken together with section 2(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the child was not able to assent to the variation by reason of being a minor. His inability was not by reason of another incapacity and was not because of an impairment or disturbance of mind or brain. Therefore the general result was that, in the case of a beneficiary who is under 18, the question as to whether the proposed variation was for his benefit will always be a matter for the High Court.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii