Deputies—appointment, duties and powers

Choosing the deputy

Any person may make a first application for the appointment of a deputy, although in practice most applications are made by (or on behalf of) a close relative. If there is no such person able or willing to make the application then the application may be made by a concerned friend, a solicitor or local authority. There is no requirement for permission so long as the application pertains to P's property and affairs.

The appointment of a deputy is made by the Court of Protection (the court) acting in its discretion, and no person has an automatic right to be appointed in priority to another. The court must consider the choice of deputy carefully having regard to the best interests of P. In practice, a deputy should be someone who:

  1. has the right level of skill and competence, and

  2. has a close personal connection to P

The court may appoint two or more deputies and they may be appointed jointly, jointly and severally, or jointly in respect of some matters and jointly and severally in respect of other matters.

Where there

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Standish)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents