Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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