Re AR



Judge: Charles J

Citation: [2018] EWCOP 8

Summary

In this case Charles J ruled that the practice of making bulk orders for the approval of a deputy’s remuneration was wrong and that remuneration was a best interests decision that had to be made on an individual basis.

In a judgment that was significantly critical of previous Court of Protection practice, Charles J ruled that the Court of Protection could and should not approve remuneration for deputies on a bulk basis but, rather, should assess each case individually, see paragraphs 18-19, 21, 24-26 of the judgment.

Charles J held that the bulk orders should all be reviewed by the COP of its own motion without the need for an application fee (see paragraphs 93-94) but until an order that has been sealed has been set aside or varied, it can still be relied upon, see paragraph 27.

Charles J made clear that COP PD 19B (which sets out fixed costs for various types of work), is not a presumptive scale but rather a relevant factor to be taken into account when deciding the level of a deputy’s remuneration, see paragraphs 34-35.

As regards the actual case, P had limited means, so the question arose whether a solicitor’s higher charging rates (when compared to those of a local authority deputy) could be justified. In the end, from paragraph 55 on, the judge held that in the individual case, they were. That was on the basis of a more personal approach that had resulted in additional benefit to P.

In many cases, the expenditure on the deputy will be accepted by a local authority as disability related expenditure and so reduce P’s means and liability to contribute to care costs. In those circumstances, the issue will not be so acute as P will suffer no loss by virtue of a solicitor deputy’s higher changes.

Charles J also held that the court had power to authorise pre-appointment expenditure, see paragraph 49 and that orders should include an inflation index for charges (the CPI), see paragraph 88.

Comment

There is always a balance to be struck between administrative convenience and specific consideration of individual cases.  In his parting shot as Vice-President of the Court of Protection, and in line with other case-law criticizing “bulk” approaches, Charles J made clear that he considered that a regime had developed which had swung considerably too far towards the side of administrative convenience.

CategoryBest interests - Property and affairs Date

Keywords


Sign up to our Mental Capacity Law Newsletter


    Before submitting this form please read and agree to our Privacy Notice. Form submissions will only be held for 24 hours, after which they will be automatically deleted.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Call +44 (0)20 7832 1111 for more information

Barrister portfolio

Close

Click the + icon next to any barrister to add their profile to this portfolio.

Barrister Call CV Email