SH, Re [2016] EWCOP 2 (08 January 2016)

SH, Re [2016] EWCOP 2 (08 January 2016)

Ray, as attorney, failed to act in Sybil's best interests by neglecting his duties and delegating responsibilities, justifying revocation of both LPAs. Given Sybil's minimal assets and Fatima's role as carer, Fatima should be appointed as deputy for property and affairs. There is no necessity for a personal welfare deputy as routine decisions can be made by carers and professionals.

Citation
[2016] EWCOP 2
Parties
Applicant: The Public Guardian; Respondent: RL (Ray); Respondent: FJ (Fatima); Respondent: KLC (Karl)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Revocation of Lasting Powers of Attorney / Final Judgment
Outcome
LPAs revoked; Fatima appointed as deputy for property and affairs; no deputy appointed for personal welfare.
Legal Topics
Revocation of Lasting Power of Attorney, Appointment of Deputy, Best Interests, Mental Capacity, Attorney Misconduct
Mental Capacity Elder Law Trusts and Estates Revocation of Lasting Power of Attorney Appointment of Deputy Best Interests Attorney Misconduct

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Public Guardian

Applicant

RL (Ray)

Respondent

FJ (Fatima)

Respondent

KLC (Karl)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Revocation of Lasting Powers of Attorney / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the attorney (Ray) behaved in a way that contravened his authority or was not in Sybil's best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether the LPAs for property and affairs and personal welfare should be revoked
  3. 3 Whether a deputy should be appointed for Sybil's property and affairs and/or personal welfare

Ratio Decidendi

Ray, as attorney, failed to act in Sybil's best interests by neglecting his duties and delegating responsibilities, justifying revocation of both LPAs. Given Sybil's minimal assets and Fatima's role as carer, Fatima should be appointed as deputy for property and affairs. There is no necessity for a personal welfare deputy as routine decisions can be made by carers and professionals.

Court Disposition

LPAs revoked; Fatima appointed as deputy for property and affairs; no deputy appointed for personal welfare.

Orders

  • Revocation of the registered LPAs for property and affairs and personal welfare made by Sybil on 23 April 2008.
  • Appointment of Fatima as deputy for Sybil's property and financial affairs.