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

Removal of Guttering Leads to Costly Court Battle

7th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between neighbours over where the boundary between their properties lies can ultimately lead to litigation costs far exceeding the value of the land in question. In a widely reported case, the removal of guttering that allegedly overhung a neighbouring property resulted in a court appearance. A couple claimed that their neighbour had ripped out guttering at their home. They brought legal action against her, claiming that she had trespassed onto their land, and are seeking nearly £2,000 for repairs. They argue that the guttering was wholly on their own...

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...