PBM v TGT & Anor [2019] EWCOP 6

​The court had to determine i) whether the P had the capacity to marry, to make a will and to enter into a prenuptial agreement; and 2) whether he should be told about the amount of his estate. The court ruled that all applications should succeed.

The P has an acquired brain injury as a result of a deliberate injection of insulin by his father when he was 12 months old. He was now in a relationship with his fiancee and wished to marry her, enter into a prenuptial agreement and be told the value of his estate (which was substantial as he had received a compensation award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of his injuries). The Deputy did not agree that he should be told about the extent of his estate. 

The court agreed that the P had capacity to marry, make a will, enter into a prenuptial agreement and be told the value of his estate. The reasons for the decision about the value of his estate were, amongst others:

1. The prenuptial agreement would be less effective without the information. There was a risk that failure to provide the information would deprive the P of an opportunity to protect his assets in the event of marital breakdown.
2. The P had expressed the clearest desire to enter into a prenuptial agreement and to make a will. His ability to effect these would be greatly enhanced by knowing about the extent of his assets.
3. The existence of the Deputyship has been an effective safeguard against financial abuse.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii