PP, Re [2015] EWCOP 93 (15 May 2015)

PP, Re [2015] EWCOP 93 (15 May 2015)

The court held that the gift of £324,000 to JB was not in PP's best interests, as it was inconsistent with her testamentary intentions, lacked evidence of her informed consent or wish to privilege JB over her grandchildren, and posed a risk to her future care needs. The court found that the attorney exceeded his authority under section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Restitution of part of the gift was ordered, with an adjustment to ensure fairness to all beneficiaries in line with PP's will.

Citation
[2015] EWCOP 93
Parties
Applicant: BB; Respondent: PP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Judgment on Application for Retrospective Ratification of Gift
Outcome
Application for ratification of the £324,000 gift refused; partial restitution ordered; directions for statutory codicil to PP's will; limited future gifting permitted.
Legal Topics
Best Interests Decision Making, Gifts by Attorneys, Inheritance Tax Planning, Statutory Will/codicil, Attorney Duties Under LPA
Mental Capacity Law Equity and Trusts Best Interests Decision Making Gifts by Attorneys Inheritance Tax Planning Statutory Will/codicil Attorney Duties Under LPA

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BB

Applicant

PP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Judgment on Application for Retrospective Ratification of Gift

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should ratify a gift of £324,000 made by an attorney to the donor's daughter under a Lasting Power of Attorney
  2. 2 Whether the gift was in the best interests of PP under section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005
  3. 3 Whether the attorneys acted within their authority under section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the gift of £324,000 to JB was not in PP's best interests, as it was inconsistent with her testamentary intentions, lacked evidence of her informed consent or wish to privilege JB over her grandchildren, and posed a risk to her future care needs. The court found that the attorney exceeded his authority under section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Restitution of part of the gift was ordered, with an adjustment to ensure fairness to all beneficiaries in line with PP's will.

Court Disposition

Application for ratification of the £324,000 gift refused; partial restitution ordered; directions for statutory codicil to PP's will; limited future gifting permitted.

Orders

  • JB to repay £164,000 to PP immediately.
  • £160,000 used by JB and BB in purchase of their home to be brought into hotchpot and form part of JB's 50% share of PP's estate.