Re N

This case concerned an application by the parents of a minor, N, to authorize the acceptance of a property gift on his behalf.

• Parents applied to accept a property gift for their minor child, N.
• The gift involved a one-third share of a property in Switzerland.
• Swiss law required authorization from the courts where N is habitually resident.
• The court granted the authorization, finding it in N's best interests.

The applicants, N's parents, sought authorization to accept a gift of one-third of a property in Switzerland on behalf of their 15-year-old son, N. The father, who owned the property, intended to transfer shares to N's mother, N's brother, and N himself. While Swiss law permits minors to own property, it required authorization from the courts of the country where the minor is habitually resident, which in this case was the UK.

The court referenced two previous cases, Re AC [2020] EWFC 90 and Re B [2022] EWFC 7, where similar authorizations were sought for minors to accept overseas property. Although the facts differed, the legal principles remained the same. In those cases, the authorizations were required due to forced heirship laws after a parent's death. In this case, the gift was an inter vivos transfer from N's father.

The application was initially listed before a family judge at the Central Family Court and later allocated to the High Court due to the factual distinctions. The hearing took place on 14 June 2024 before Mr. Justice Peel.

The court reviewed comprehensive documentation, including evidence from Swiss lawyers about the legal requirements in Switzerland. The proper procedure as outlined in Re B was meticulously followed. N was consulted and expressed contentment with the proposed arrangement. The application included a signed Deed of Agreement ensuring that N's father would cover all running costs and provide indemnities.

Mr. Justice Peel concluded that the application fell within the exercise of parental responsibility as outlined in the previous cases. He considered the welfare checklist and the paramountcy principle, determining that the authorization was clearly in N's best interests. Consequently, the court granted the order.