BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Protection Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Protection Decisions >> AJ, Re [2015] EWCOP 62 (06 October 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2015/62.html Cite as: [2015] EWCOP 62 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
42-49 High Holborn London WC1V 6NP |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Re AJ THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
EJ |
Respondent |
____________________
The respondent in person
Hearing date: 17 September 2015
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Senior Judge Lush
The background
(a) developmental delay;
(b) ptosis (the medical term for a drooping eyelid);
(c) coarctation of aorta (a congenital heart condition); and
(d) dysmorphia (a mental disorder caused by an obsessive preoccupation with a perceived defect in her appearance).
Deputyship orders
The application
1. An order directing that a member of the panel of deputies be invited to make an application for their appointment as deputy to make decisions on behalf of Angharad in relation to her property and financial affairs. Upon appointment of a member of the panel of deputies, Edward and Gwilym are to be discharged as deputies.
2. An order that Edward shall account to the new deputy for all his dealings and transactions with the management of Angharad's property and financial affairs from 16 February 2011 to present and to provide the deputy with copies of all documents, correspondence or records he holds or has access to in respect of Angharad's property and affairs.
(a) Concerns were raised on 6 October 2012 that Edward had been misappropriating Angharad's funds and, in particular, a sum of £5,000, which was deposited in a Britannia Building Society account.
(b) There were also concerns about the whereabouts of the net proceeds of sale of a holiday cottage in Pembrokeshire, which had belonged to Angharad's late mother, Jayne.
(c) Jayne's residuary estate is held in trust to pay or apply the capital and income to Angharad during her lifetime and, on Angharad's death, the balance of the trust fund is to be split equally between Marie Curie Cancer Care and Barnardo's.
(d) In a letter of wishes to the trustees of her will dated 12 June 2012 Jayne had said, "It is my wish that in no circumstances should Edward have any access to the funds held in the trust fund."
(e) The annual reports for 2011/12, 2012/13, and 2013/14 were still outstanding.
Orders
(a) requiring the Public Guardian to serve the papers on the deputies by 7 November;
(b) permitting the Public Guardian to serve a redacted version of the Visitor's report;
(c) directing Edward to respond to the application by 28 November;
(d) instructing an officer of the court to invite a panel deputy to be appointed in place of the existing deputies; and
(e) asking for the matter to be referred back to a judge on or after 1 December.
(a) requiring an officer of the court to send the Public Guardian a copy of Edward's application;
(b) the Public Guardian to file a response by 14 August;
(c) inviting the respondents to file and serve any further evidence and submissions by 4 September; and
(d) listing the matter for an attended hearing before me at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre at 2pm on Thursday 17 September 2015. I was due to give a talk to the Court of Protection Users' Group there at 4.30 that afternoon, and it seemed sensible to hear the application in Cardiff, rather than require Edward and Angharad to travel up to London.
The hearing
The law relating to the removal of a deputy
"The court may, in particular, revoke the appointment of a deputy or vary the powers conferred on him if it is satisfied that the deputy –
(a) has behaved, or is behaving, in a way that contravenes the authority conferred on him by the court or is not in P's best interests, or
(b) proposes to behave in a way that would contravene that authority or would not be in P's best interests."
Decision