Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

CAPACITY: A, B, C v X, Z [2012] EWHC 2400 (COP), [2013] COPLR 1

Sep 29, 2018, 18:31 PM
Slug : capacity-a-b-c-v-x-z-2012-ewhc-2400-cop-2013-coplr-1
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 2, 2012, 09:30 AM
Article ID : 100767

(Court of Protection, Hedley J, 30 July 2012

After the death of his wife the man, who had significant means derived from a family business, was diagnosed with dementia. He, therefore, executed lasting powers of attorney in respect of his three children.

Following his diagnosis the man employed a full-time carer and subsequently said that he wished to marry her. From that point onwards relations with the family deteriorated and resulted in litigation regarding his capacity.

The applicants failed to satisfy the court that the man lacked capacity to marry by reference to the guidelines laid down in Sheffield City Council v E [2005] 2 WLR 953. Although the man had suffered a significant decline in his executive function he maintained many aspects of fundamental intelligence and the requirements for capacity to marry were comparatively modest.

It was not possible to make a general declaration that the man lacked testamentary capacity but there would undoubtedly be times when he did lack capacity in this regard and those times were likely to become more frequent. Any will he now created that was not supported by contemporary medical evidence attesting his capacity would be highly susceptible to challenge. The same applied with regard to his capacity to create a new lasting power of attorney but the applicants had failed to prove that he lacked capacity to revoke the previous power of attorney.

In relation to the management of his affairs the man lacked capacity. Due to the ongoing nature of managing affairs it was quite different from the specific act of making a will or a lasting power of attorney. He also lacked capacity to litigate and the causal link set out in the MCA 2005 of the impairment or disturbance in the functioning of the mind was satisfied by reference to the medical evidence.

Categories :
  • Court of Protection
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from