PSG Trust Corporation Limited vs CK & NJ

This case addressed how a Property and Affairs Deputy should approach the issue of whether to inform individuals (P) of the value of their civil litigation settlement.

TLDR:

• PSG Trust Corporation Limited acted as the Deputy for CK and NJ.
• The court had to decide if CK and NJ should be informed about the value of their civil litigation settlements.
• The court provided guidance on assessing capacity and best interests in such scenarios.

The applicants, PSG Trust Corporation Limited, were the Property and Affairs Deputies for CK and NJ. They sought guidance on whether they should inform CK and NJ of the value of their civil litigation settlements. This issue was deemed to be of significant concern among professional deputies.

The hearing initially scheduled for 4th May 2023 was adjourned to gather more evidence and consult with members of the Professional Deputies Forum. The Official Solicitor was invited to act as Advocate to the Court to ensure all relevant arguments were considered.

The court examined the responses from the Professional Deputies Forum, which revealed a lack of clear guidance on this issue. The responses indicated varied practices among deputies, with some seeking medical evidence of capacity and others not.

The legal framework for assessing capacity was discussed, referencing Sections 1-3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and relevant case law, including A Local Authority v JB [2022] AC 1322. The court emphasized the importance of decision-specific capacity assessments.

The court reviewed previous cases on this issue, including EXB v FDZ [2018] EWHC 3456 (QB), PBM v TGT [2019] EWCOP 6, and DXW v PXL [2019] EWHC 2579. These cases provided insights into how courts have previously addressed the question of informing individuals of their settlement values.

In the current case, the court assessed the capacity of CK and NJ to understand the value of their settlements and the potential risks associated with this knowledge. The court concluded that CK lacked the capacity to make this decision but determined it was in her best interests to be informed due to her strong support system and understanding of money.

For NJ, the court found she lacked the capacity to understand the value of her settlement and the associated risks. The court decided it was not in NJ's best interests to be informed of the settlement amount due to her significant vulnerabilities and limited understanding of money.

The court provided guidance on the role of deputies and the importance of distinguishing between capacity assessments and best interests decisions. The judgment emphasized the need to protect and promote the autonomy of individuals while recognizing their vulnerabilities.

Legal representatives: Miss Fay Collinson (instructed by Price Slater Gawne Solicitors) for the Applicant, Mr. Justin Holmes (instructed by the Official Solicitor) acting as Advocate to the Court.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hayden

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCOP 14