Court of Protection Hub
  • Home
  • Resources
    • Key cases archive
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site

Cases

Re D [2016] EWCOP 35

18/8/2016

 
​Senior Judge Lush heard the appeal against an order authorising the applicant to execute a statutory will without the obligation to serve papers on someone who is entitled to a half share of the estate.

Background

D, aged 30, suffers from athetoid cerebral palsy as a result of complications when he was born. He communicates non-verbally and is wheelchair dependent, relying on others for all personal care. He sued the health authority for clinical negligence and was awarded £3.1 million in damages. D lives with his mother who was appointed as his receiver in 2003 and as deputy for property and affairs in 2008.

It was confirmed in 2014 that D lacks the capacity to make a will. He is therefore intestate and on his death his estate would be divided equally between his mother and his father, with whom he has had no contact for 22 years. This means that upon D's death his mother, but not his father, would have an inheritance claim against the estate following the decision in Re B (Deceased) [2000] Ch 662, [2000] 2 WLR 929, [2000] 1 All ER 665.

On 3 July 2015, D's mother applied for an order authorising her to execute a statutory will which would appoint her and D's brothers as his executors and trustees, give D's mother a life interest in his house which would pass to the brothers upon her death, donate 2% of his residuary estate to charity, and split the remaining 98% between the executors and trustees in equal shares.

On 7 January 2016, District Judge Payne ordered that service upon D's father could be dispensed with under rule 38 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007. This was deemed appropriate given that D had no contact with his father. The Official Solicitor was granted leave to appeal the order.

Law and guidance
The judgment provides a useful recap of the rules relating to service and dispensing with service. Practitioners will be aware of the rules and guidance set out in Part 9 of the Court of Protections Rules 2007. In particular the guidance relating to statutory wills as set out in paragraph 9 of PD9F says that:

“The applicant must name as a respondent:

(a)    any beneficiary under an existing will or codicil who is likely to be materially or adversely affected by the application;

(b)    any beneficiary under a proposed will or codicil who is likely to be materially or adversely affected by the application; and

(c)    any prospective beneficiary under P’s intestacy where P has no existing will.”


In addition to the court's general case management powers, rule 38 specifically covers the court's power to dispense with service and sets out that:

(1)    The court may dispense with any requirement to serve a document.

(2)    An application for an order to dispense with service may be made without notice.


In Re HMF [1976] Ch 33 it was decided that charities could be joined as parties to an application for a statutory will where the charities stood to benefit.

The case of Re Davey [1981] WLR 164 confirmed that the court "has a discretion as to what persons are to be made respondent to or given notice of the application" to execute a statutory will.

In 1987 the court heard the case of B (Court of Protection: Notice of Proceedings) [1987] 1 WLR 552 where B's receiver argued that the nephews should not be notified of his application to execute the statutory will for fear that a family dispute would ensue. The application was, perhaps understandably, refused. Mr Justice Millett set out that before exercising judicial discretion the court must be satisfied that:

(a)    All relevant material is before the court and the arguments can properly be directed to the question to be determined, and

(b)    All persons materially and adversely affected should be given every opportunity of putting their cases forward.


Mr Justice Millett accepted that there are cases where it would be right to exclude a party from proceedings despite any interest or adverse effect, but that this would only happen in the most exceptional circumstances.

District Judge Batten decided the first case following the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in Re AB [2014] COPLR 381. AB was awarded damages for a personal injury and her mother applied to execute a statutory will which would remove AB's absent father from entitlement. Clearly the circumstances of AB's case are very similar to D's circumstances. The difference however was that there were allegations of violence against the absent father and AB had expressed a wish that her father should not benefit from her estate. In this case it was decided that despite the serious allegations service should not be dispensed with and AB was not an exceptional case. DJ Batten highlighted the following key points:

(a) No investigation required as to what is in P's best interests;

(b) Permission to dispense with service should only be given in exceptional circumstances where there are compelling reasons for doing so. If there are no compelling reasons then interests of justice will not be served and the court will not be seen to be acting fairly towards all parties.
​
(c) Relevant considerations for 'compelling reasons' will include:

(i) the respondent’s conduct, particularly where there is independent and reliable corroborative evidence of his past behaviour;

(ii) the value of the financial benefit to the respondent both in absolute and relative terms; and

(iii) whether the cost to P’s estate or the parties, or the delay caused in concluding the application is disproportionate relative to the value to the respondent of the benefit he will lose by the proposed final order.

Decision
Senior Judge Lush found that there was no urgency in this case, it was not exceptional and there was no compelling reason why service on D's father should be dispensed with. The judgment includes comments that the Judge was unimpressed with efforts to locate the father and that undue prominence had been allowed to the cost of the search.

This case was distinguished from Re AB as there was no suggestion of physical violence towards D. Furthermore, D's paternal family became aware of the damages he was awarded due to publication in the press. The judgment highlighted that it is therefore likely the paternal family were living locally and therefore papers should be served not least because D's father may entertain a hope that he may someday inherit part of the award. 

Commentary
The submissions by the Official Solicitor are particularly helpful in this case as he provided useful commentary and guidance. The salient points are expanded from the case of Re AB. I would therefore urge practitioners to read the judgment in full where they have a case dealing with dispensation of service when executing a statutory will. 

Senior Judge Lush acknowledged that applications to dispense with service are often made because "it would be more convenient for the applicant to avoid any potential confrontation and less painful than the re-opening of old wounds". Nevertheless this should not be a bar to fairness in proceedings and to deny someone their Article 6 rights under the ECHR based on discomfort of the parties alone cannot be right.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii 



Comments are closed.
    Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available. 

    Sign up for our free email alert

    We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at  any time

    RSS Feed


    Useful books from Bath Publishing


    Browse

    Categories

    All
    Advance Decisions
    Assessments
    Best Interests
    Capacity
    Committal
    Contact
    Contempt Of Court
    Coronavirus
    Costs
    Deputies
    Disclosure
    DNA Testing
    DOLs
    End Of Life Decisions
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Publicity
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination

    Archives

    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015



Picture
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com
Manage your email preferences
Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Resources
    • Key cases archive
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site