Analysis
P had had a series of professional deputies, each seeking to be discharged on the basis of an irretrievable breakdown in relations with P’s family, particularly AR, P’s father.
Earlier proceedings in the Court of Protection (see [2019] EWCOP 15) concluded with an order appointing K as property and affairs deputy for P. By an application dated 13 August 2020, K applied to be discharged as deputy, and for the appointment of another panel deputy instead. That application was refused on paper in October 2020, but K sought reconsideration of his application. On 10 December 2020 the court permitted K to make oral submissions and directed the Public Guardian to file a statement setting out what support he is able to provide to panel deputies who are engaged in difficult cases involving hostile family members.
K submitted that AR’s conduct undermined his role as deputy and that he should not be ‘enslaved’ to deputyship indefinitely. AR’s conduct was increasing costs to MBR and was likely to lead to proceedings being brought personally against AR, which would give rise to a conflict of interest.
AR requested that he, or another family member, be appointed deputy for P.
The issues to be determined were:
- 1) Should the current professional deputy be discharged?
- 2) What safeguards should be put in place to assist future panel deputies?
Held:
- 1) Although a deputy’s consent is required for their appointment, the withdrawal of their consent is not determinative of the decision to discharge; the court retains a discretion, acting in P’s best interests – Cumbria County Council v A [2020] followed.
- 2) Membership of the Public Guardian’s panel of deputies is a recognition of expertise and experience which carries the advantages of referrals, but also responsibilities on panel members to accept those referrals save in limited circumstances. Applications for discharge because a matter is challenging will not be granted as a matter of course; changing deputies incurs avoidable cost and risks ‘rewarding’ negative behaviour by those around P. The court should look to salvage working relationships where possible.
- 3) It was not in the interests of P for K to continue as deputy. There was no constructive working relationship between K and AR. The support of the Office of the Public Guardian and its attempts to begin constructive dialog had failed, and K’s reluctance to act was understandable. AR’s conduct appears to have been the principal reason for the discharge of three professional deputies, and he was obviously unsuitable as a deputy. Two more distant relatives would have the benefit of AR’s co-operation and goodwill, but would have no deputyship experience and no indemnity insurance. Nevertheless, that inexperience could be managed by setting security at £400,000, limiting their authority and requiring an application to court if any dispute with AR was not resolved within three months. Out of an abundance of caution, their appointment would be limited to one accounting period.
Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT HHJ HILDER: The numbers in round brackets refer to pages of the hearing bundle. The issues [1] The background to this matter is set out in a judgment published at [2019] EWCOP 15. [2] The earlier proceedings concluded with the appointment of Sunil Kambli (‘the Deputy’) as property and affairs deputy for MBR. The …Continue reading "Kambli v AR & anr [2022] WTLR 221"