David and Barry v Peter
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- SENIOR JUDGE LUSH
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Health Law
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a contested application over who should be appointed as deputy for DG, an elderly man suffering from Alzheimer's. His sons David and Barry sought appointment without notifying their brother Peter, who then objected and applied himself. The court decided in favor of David and Barry, emphasizing geographical proximity and a better relationship with care providers as key factors in the best interest of DG.
JUDGMENT
Senior Judge Lush:
The practice guidance on the publication of judgments in the Court of Protection, [2014] COPLR 78, requires me to publish a judgment in “any case where there is a dispute as to who should act as an attorney or deputy”, unless there are compelling reasons why it should not be published.
This is a contested application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs and there are no compelling reasons why this judgment should not be published.
The background
DG was born in 1921. His wife, FG, who was two years older than him, died on 24 April 2014. Since October 2013 he has been a resident in a care home in Surrey run by Anchor.
He has three sons, all of whom have an accountancy or book-keeping background and at one time worked for the printing company he founded in 1971:
David, who was born in 1948 and lives in Surrey;
Peter, who was born in 1951 and has lived in Yorkshire since 2005; and
Barry, who was born in 1955 and lives in Surrey.
DG has Alzheimer’s disease and was admitted to hospital on 26 September 2013 following an acute delirious episode.
On 20 January 2014 David and Barry applied to be appointed jointly and severally as his deputies for property and affairs. They predicted (correctly) that their brother Peter would object to the application, and considered that his objection would be unnecessary, time-consuming, expensive, and generally contrary to their father’s best interests, so they did not bother to give him notice.
It is one of the fundamental principles of justice that a judge should hear what the other side has to say, too, and on 24 April 2014 I made an order requiring the applicants to send a copy of the application to Peter.
The objection
On 31 May 2014 Peter filed an acknowledgment of service, in which he objected to the application and proposed that he should be appointed as his father’s deputy, instead of his brothers. It was accompanied by an extremely lengthy witness statement, in which he described the events leading up to his parents’ admission into a care home.
In essence, DG and his wife FG had become increasingly frail and infirm and were still living in their own flat. When DG was admitted to hospital in September 2013, it was impossible to leave his wife, FG, in the flat on her own, so David and Barry, with the agreement of Surrey Social Services and her General Practitioner, arranged for her to be admitted to a residential home for respite care. They never consulted Pe