Kambli v The Public Guardian [2021] EWCOP 53

Judgment relating to whether a property and affairs deputy for an individual lacking capacity should be discharged and, if so, who should be appointed in their stead.

MBR is a 12-year-old boy with cerebral palsy. Mr Kambli was appointed as property and affairs deputy for MBR following the decision of Hilder J in NKR v The Thomson Snell and Passmore Trust Corporation Ltd [2019] EWCOP 15. The order appointing Mr Kambli restricted expenditure on adaptation works to MBR’s property to £190,000. Mr Kambli sought the discharge of his appointment in August 2020 and, in order to complete adaptation works to MBR’s property, applied for an increase of £15,000 in the permitted expenditure for such works. The request for the expenditure increase was granted, and during a hearing, it was recognised that the parties considered that it was in MBR’s best interests for Mr Kambli to be discharged, but that it was ultimately for the court to determine MBR’s best interests.
 
On the evidence before her, Hilder J held that it was not in the best interests of MBR for Mr Kambli to continue in his position as property and affairs deputy:
 
“Aspects of managing his financial affairs which should be straightforward (such as agreeing expenditure for a holiday) will be drawn out and acrimonious; and costs will inevitably be higher than necessary. Since deputyship does not operate in a vacuum, MBR's living arrangements are likely also to be adversely affected in terms of household stress. It is these considerations, and not in themselves either Mr. Kambli's withdrawal of consent or AR's inappropriate behaviour, which point to the conclusion that the current deputyship appointment should be discharged.”
 
Whilst Hilder J expressed some concerns about appointing two individuals, KS and AQ, as replacement deputies as they are related to MBR, she held that on balance they should be appointed in Mr Kambli’s stead.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2021/53.html