fbpx

Court Decides How Injured Child's Estate Should Be Distributed

11th April 2019 By Arman Khosravi

It is not uncommon for children born with severe abnormalities or injuries to die in childhood. In a recent case, the Court of Protection was required to decide how to divide the estate of a child who died when the lump-sum compensation settlement for injuries he suffered at birth was still largely intact.

The boy was born when his mother was 18. His injuries meant that he would need care and around-the-clock supervision for the whole of his life. His mother, whose own health was permanently damaged by the birth, looked after him for the early part of his life, but he was then taken into foster care and a guardian over his affairs was appointed. His biological father denied paternity and played no part at all in the boy’s life.

His birth injuries had led to a claim against the NHS trust responsible for his delivery and that led to the settlement, which consisted of a six-figure lump sum and annual payments exceeding £80,000.

When his foster carer died, the fostering arrangement was transferred to other members of her family. They looked after the boy, regarding him as a member of the family, until he died when he was thirteen years old.

When he had only days to live, the family came to a provisional agreement as to how his estate should be dealt with, but the emotional upheaval at the time meant it was not put into effect by the creation of a statutory will.

His estate was valued at more than £600,000 and the Court of Protection was asked to decide how it should be distributed. The Court concluded that the boy would have always lacked the mental capacity to make a will. Were the rules of intestacy to apply, the child’s biological father would inherit half of his estate.

The decision of the Court was that the caring family should inherit the house that had been bought and modified for him to live in, free of Inheritance Tax, and that his mother should inherit the residue of his estate. His biological father received nothing.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...