Decision making in respect of property and affairs

The Court of Protection (the court) is permitted to make decisions in respect of the property and affairs of a protected person (P) by section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). Common applications include applications to buy, sell and lease property, applications to make gifts and settle property and applications authorising the deputy to sign a statutory Will on behalf of P.

When making decisions in respect of P’s property and affairs, the decision maker must first consider the principles set out in MCA 2005, s 1, namely:

•
P must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that P lacks capacity
•
P is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help P to do so have been taken without success
•
P is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because P makes an unwise decision
•
an act done, or decision made, under MCA 2005 for or on behalf of P must be done, or made, in P’s best interests
•
before

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

High Court judgment demonstrates usefulness of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in Schedule 1 claims (Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision))

Family analysis: In this Schedule 1 case the mother received, for her son’s benefit: a housing fund of nearly £1m (the property to be held on trust); child maintenance (including ‘HECSA’/carer’s allowance) until completion of his first degree; and lump sums in respect of his capital needs and her own substantial liabilities (chiefly relating to her unpaid legal fees). The father (whose resources could be measured in the ‘tens of millions of pounds’) had sought to prejudice the mother’s claims via transferring his valuable shares to family members, who then transferred the same into a trust structure (settled under Czech law). A further onwards transfer was then made of the trust’s assets into a Liechtenstein foundation. Inferences were drawn by the court in respect of the level of the father’s wealth, and specifically as to the value of the transferred shares. Detailed findings were made against him in respect of the identified transactions, which had been the focus of the mother’s section 423 application. Although a section 423(2) order was not actually made, the application was adjourned pending the father’s compliance with the award, with security in the sum of £600,000 also ordered, alongside a continuation of the freezing orders made earlier in the proceedings. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

Family weekly highlights—26 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of the new Pension Schemes Bill and consideration of Hadkinson and unless orders where there is a failure to comply with a legal services payment order. Recent judgments on the interaction between accommodation under the Children Act 1989 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the inherent jurisdiction to facilitate the summary return of a child are considered. Two new flowcharts on applications under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the 1980 Hague Convention) and the limited defences that may be raised in response to an application under the 1980 Hague Convention are also set out.

Hadkinson versus unless orders (Ahmad v Faraj)

Family analysis: The court was concerned with the failure of one party, the husband, to comply with a legal services payment order (LSPO) made in favour of another party, the wife, in order to fund her representation on appeals made by the husband and the second respondent (IBB). The husband and IBB appealed a first instance decision in a financial relief matter and the wife secured a LSPO against the husband for representation during the appeal proceedings. The husband did not comply with that order and the wife applied for an unless order or Hadkinson order to be made to enforce the LSPO. The court declined to make an unless order as it was disproportionate to immediately dismiss the husband’s claim. The court did make a Hadkinson order (per Hadkinson v Hadkinson), which was considered more proportionate and the conditions in de Gaffori v de Gaffori for making such an order were satisfied. Anastasia Gilfillan, barrister, and Emily Lennon, pupil, at 1 Hare Court, consider the decision.

Family weekly highlights—19 June 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of the latest Online Procedure Rule Committee meeting minutes and the evidence given at the annual session of the Lords Constitution Committee. Recent judgments on the duty to accommodate a child, foreign adoption and child maintenance are considered. A new flowchart on the threshold criteria in public children proceedings is also set out.