AW, Re

AW, Re

DB is appointed as AW’s deputy for property and affairs because he is better qualified, has demonstrated practical involvement in AW’s affairs, is geographically closer, has the support of AW’s significant companion MG, and AW’s written statements (including his will) indicate trust in DB. Joint deputyship is rejected due to ongoing acrimony and risk of obstruction.

Parties
Applicant: DB; Respondent: DW
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Deputyship Application / Judgment
Outcome
DB appointed as sole deputy for AW’s property and affairs.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Deputy, Property and Affairs, Best Interests, Mental Capacity Act 2005
Mental Capacity Elder Law Appointment of Deputy Property and Affairs Best Interests Mental Capacity Act 2005

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DB

Applicant

DW

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Deputyship Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should be appointed as AW’s deputy for property and affairs?
  2. 2 What weight should be given to the views of significant persons in AW’s life?
  3. 3 Does proximity and involvement in AW’s affairs affect suitability for deputyship?

Ratio Decidendi

DB is appointed as AW’s deputy for property and affairs because he is better qualified, has demonstrated practical involvement in AW’s affairs, is geographically closer, has the support of AW’s significant companion MG, and AW’s written statements (including his will) indicate trust in DB. Joint deputyship is rejected due to ongoing acrimony and risk of obstruction.

Court Disposition

DB appointed as sole deputy for AW’s property and affairs.

Orders

  • DB to act as AW’s deputy for property and affairs.