Personal injury trusts versus deputyships

The two main options for holding and managing the affairs of a person without capacity are a deputyship and a personal injury trust. A deputyship has the benefits of greater financial protection and court oversight but many injured people and their families find a private trust arrangement to be more personal, accountable and responsive, especially where complex projects such as the purchase and adaptation of a property are involved. Many also find the psychological separation from the court system helpful after a long and traumatic litigation.

The court however has had concerns about the potential lack of oversight of personal injury trusts and the way that costs are charged. Under a deputyship, costs are subject to assessment by the Senior Court Costs Office, but under a trust, this is not generally the case unless specific provision is made.

In SM v HM, the court considered when it was appropriate to authorise the creation

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

MAC publishes family visa financial requirements review

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its report on the minimum income requirement (MIR) for the partner migration route recommending that the MIR is not matched to the skilled worker route and making recommendations for different calculations that could be used instead and recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced. This news piece sets out the key points in the report.

Family weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of a decision concerning the additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy. Recent judgments on domestic abuse, applications to set aside return orders and assessment of a solicitor’s conduct where there were issues of client capacity are also included.

Additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy (Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z)

Family analysis: In Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z the court considered an application for a parental order by the intended parents, (the applicants), who were both aged 72 at the time of their application. The child had been born via a surrogacy arrangement in California. While all elements of section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) criteria had been met, Mrs Justice Knowles expressed her concern, at the first hearing, that the applicant’s statements did not sufficiently detail the arrangements for the child’s care should they die or lose capacity during the child’s minority. The court was required to consider the child’s lifelong welfare interests when deciding whether to make a parental order and was obliged to examine carefully what arrangements had been made to secure the child’s welfare should incapacity or death befall either of the applicants. Natalie Sutherland, partner and head of Modern Families at Burgess Mee Family Law considers the decision.

Family weekly highlights—29 May 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of the implications of the Family Justice Council guidance on covert recordings in children proceedings. Recent judgments on adoption, anonymisation and an application to vary a transparency order and the Court of Appeal’s consideration of an appeal against a summary return order are also included.