Crafer v Jesshope

June 2012 #120

The application concerned a rift within the Jesshope/Crafer family. Mrs Edith Jesshope, aged 89, was the respondent. Mr Hubert Jesshope, aged 90, had been married to Mrs Jesshope for 65 years. Mrs Jesshope was the mother of Graham and Susan. The applicant was Susan’s husband, Mr Ian Crafer.

In mid-2008, Mr Jesshope took steps to require Graham to move out of the long time family house in Esher owned by Mr and Mrs Jesshope. Mrs Jesshope asserted a wish to live with Graham instead of Mr Jesshope. A rift emerged between Mrs Jesshope and Graham on one side (liviing in the Esher ...

Re JDS; Smyth v JDS [2012] COP 10334473

April 2012 #118

In 2001 the patient, J, received a settlement of £2,090,000 damages in respect of cerebral palsy suffered as a result of complications at the time of his birth in 1991. Of this, £1,611,222 was attributable to his future care needs. J is an only child. His father was born in 1959 and his mother in 1962. He lives with them in a house bought in October 2000 for £349,950 from an interim payment that is held by his parents and Mr Smyth (S), his receiver (now the deputy) as his trustees. Its current value is estimated at £675,000. J’s life expectancy was originally assessed in 1998 as la...

Sharma & anr v Hunters [2011] EWHC 2546 (COP)

March 2012 #117

The applicants (R and J) made a wasted costs application against the respondent solicitors (H) in the context of proceedings known as D v R (Deputy of S) and S [2010] EWHC 2405 (CoP), which had been heard by Henderson J in the Court of Protection concerning S. R was S’s daughter and his deputy. She had brought proceedings in the Chancery Division in S’s name to recover property S had given away to D on the basis of undue influence. S’s wish was that D should retain the property given to her. In that context, D applied for a declaration from the Court of Protection that ...

SM v HM 11875043/01

March 2012 #117

HM was born on 3 April 2004 and suffered from cerebral palsy following injuries she sustained during her birth. She was likely to lack capacity on reaching 18 and it was agreed that the Court of Protection had jurisdiction over her property and affairs. Proceedings against the relevant NHS trust for damages were compromised in 2010. The level of compromise damages was much less than the real level of HM’s likely care needs owing to leading counsel’s advice that her claim stood only a 25% to 33% prospect of success.

On 10 September 2010, District Judge Ashton had refus...