skip navigation

Latest News

  Company Assets and Divorce 
  Father Entitled to 'Proper Relationship' With Son 
  Court Upholds Deferment of Payment After Business Fails 
  Businesswoman's £2.7 Million Divorce Award Upheld 
  Child Maintenance - What's New? 
  Suspended Sentences for Non-Payment of Maintenance Quashed 
  Gay Couple Adoption Approved 
  Bankruptcy Not Enough to Avoid Sums Due to Ex-Wife 
  £9 Million Settlement Reasonable, Rules Court 
  Tax Return Not Definitive for Assessing Income for Child Support 
More...

Benefit to Parents Not Sufficient Benefit to Their Son


 

The Court of Protection has refused a request to make financial arrangements for a young man lacking mental capacity because there was no clear benefit to him of the proposed arrangements.

The young man, now 21, received more than £2 million in damages after medical negligence at the time of his birth resulted in him having cerebral palsy.

He is not capable of making decisions for himself and his solicitor was appointed as his deputy. As a result of his injuries, the man’s life expectancy has been considerably foreshortened and, taking this into account, his deputy applied to the Court for an order to transfer £500,000 of his property to his parents, who are his main carers. The benefit to the man was said to be that it would save Inheritance Tax (IHT) when he died (which he would consider a desirable result) and also that it would better enable his parents to look after him.

The Official Solicitor was unable to support an application to abstract such a large sum from his estate, so a request was made to transfer £325,000 to a flexible trust, achieving substantially the same end.

Although both the young man’s parents supported the application, and his deputy believed it to be in his best interests, the Official Solicitor again contested the proposals, arguing that the gift would provide no direct benefit to the man himself. Whilst it would mitigate the IHT liability on his estate, this would benefit his parents.

In his judgment, the presiding judge held that, whilst the Court is generally sympathetic towards family members who have taken on a caring role and dedicated their lives to looking after an injured relative, ‘it is not the function of the Court to anticipate, ring-fence or maximise any potential inheritance for the benefit of family members on the death of a protected party, because this is not the purpose for which the compensation for personal injury was intended’.

The judge therefore declined to make an order transferring any of the man’s assets into trust or to his parents ‘at this stage in his life’.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.
 
 

Steed & Steed Solicitors, 76-82 & 86 Coggeshall Road, Braintree, Essex, CM7 9BY | Tel: 01376 552828
6 Gainsborough Street, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2ET | Tel: 01787 373387

© Steed & Steed Solicitors. All rights reserved. | Legal Disclaimer | Complaints Procedure
Steed & Steed LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority - No. 508781

Registered in England and Wales under Registered No. OC 343265.
A list of members names is available for inspection at the registered office at 6 Gainsborough Street, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 2ET.

Where we use the word Partner or Principal it denotes member of Steed & Steed LLP.

[smaller] Change text size [larger]