Trustee or deputyship order?

Deputyship orders should always be the starting point when deciding on the best way to manage clinical negligence damages but they are not the only way, the Court of Protection confirmed in SM v HM [2012] WTLR 281.

The case was about HM, a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, and the question was whether the damages she had been awarded should be more appropriately managed via a personal injury trust.

The judge, HHJ Hazel Marshall QC, said that parliament intended that the deputyship order should be used as 'the norm' '“ a position accepted by all parties '“ but in the circumstances acceded to HM's mother to set up a trust and appoint her and a professional jointly as trustees of a personal injury settlement of HM's award.

As safe as an order

Judge Marshall acknowledged that there were circumstances where a trust might be preferred over a deputyship, provided that there was a 'significantly clear and overall advantage' offered by the former.

She cited a number of prerequisites: hurdles which simply must be overcome by the person seeking authorisation of a trust before they can even begin to argue about advantages.

An obvious one is that there absolutely has to be a family member who is suitable to act as a trustee. The judge was clearly impressed with SM in this regard, saying she was 'strong', 'articulate', 'responsible' and 'capable'. Crucially, the judge was satisfied that this mother was made of stern enough stuff to keep the professional trustee on the straight ?and narrow.

However, Judge Marshall was very cautious about vesting power in a family member who may not be the paragon that SM is. She warned about conflicts of interest, particularly where the family member is dependent on the mentally incapable person's award for their accommodation. This is not at all unusual, particularly in cerebral palsy awards to children where a large chunk of the money is often spent buying and adapting a home for the whole family.

It is not hard to see how this could raise some sticky issues in practice. It is probably not too difficult to predict which parents a court would happily appoint as trustees and which it would not. However, it will not be easy explaining this to someone who falls into the latter category.

Another prerequisite is a very tightly-drafted trust deed. Any trust has to be just as safe as the deputyship regime, she suggested. For example, professional deputies are limited in what they can charge for their services by the Court of Protection. The fees of professional trustees are not so easily controlled. In the case of HM, his hurdle was overcome by the professional trustee giving an undertaking to cap his fees. It is possible that without this undertaking, the outcome may have been different.