Re GM 11843118

Analysis

The applicants, GM’s deputies for property and affairs, sought retrospective approval of various gifts they had made from GM’s funds to themselves, their family and friends and also to several charities. Additionally, they sought retrospective approval of their purported deputyship expenses.

From GM’s estate, which amounted to just under £500,000 at the time of their appointment, it was found that the applicants had made gifts totalling £231,259.50, £55,856 and £48,396.50 of which were made respectively to themselves. £57,352 had been donated to nine charities.

Additionally, the applicants had each purchased a car (for £25,200 and £19,393.21 respectively) and a computer (for £1,299.99 and £659.04 respectively). It was claimed that the cars and computers were deputyship expenses, having been purchased so that they could visit GM and so that they could monitor her investments on the internet.

Held:

1. (1) The cars and computers were not expenses. They were gifts made without authority and would not be ratified (para 47).
2. (2) The ‘reasonableness threshold’ for gifts from GM’s estate in any given year was £4,500 (paras 85-91). Accordingly, £13,500 of the gifts made to MJ, JM and their families were approved. Additionally, a gift of £2,500 to a family friend was approved, as was the charitable donations totalling £57,352 (para 93).
3. (3) All other gifts to MJ, JM and their families required approval. These gifts were not to be ratified for the following reasons, and accordingly had to be accounted for to GM’s estate (paras 94-98, 102):
4. i) the gifts made were completely out of character with those made by GM before she lost capacity;
5. ii) there was no consultation with GM to ascertain her present wishes and feelings or any attempt to encourage her to participate in the decision-making process; and
6. iii) the applicants’ ignorance as to their duties was no excuse.
7. (4) The applicants contravened their authority as deputies and behaved in a way contrary to GM’s best interests. Their appointments as deputies for property and affairs were therefore revoked (paras 107-108).

JUDGMENT: SENIOR JUDGE LUSH: Introduction [1] The applicants are GM’s late husband’s great-niece, MJ, who was born in 1952, and his niece, JM, who was born in 1941. They are her deputies for property and affairs. [2] They have applied to the court for the retrospective approval of a number of gifts they have made …

Continue reading "Re GM 11843118"