BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> In the matter of A (Curatorship) [2015] JRC 086A (29 April 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2015/2015_086A.html Cite as: [2015] JRC 86A, [2015] JRC 086A |
||
[New search] [Help]
Curatorship - appointment of curator.
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., and Jurats Fisher and Liston. |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CURATORSHIP OF A AND APPOINTMENT OF G AS PROPOSED CURATOR
Advocate P. C. P. Pedley, on behalf of the Crown.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. Mrs A, who is aged 84, is in need of a curator and the issue that has been referred to the Court is who should fulfil that role. She has funds of between £250,000 and £300,000 and has two adult children, a son and a daughter both of whom have powers of attorney in their favour, between whom relations are or have been strained. Concerns about potential financial abuse of A by her children have been voiced by the Adult Social Services and by the manager of the nursing home where she resides.
2. As a consequence the Solicitor General has concluded that as a safe-guarding measure it would be preferable to appoint a curator with no connection to those involved. He has approached Advocate Zoe Blomfield to that end and she has agreed to act. The daughter is concerned as to the potential cost of the appointment of a lawyer and has put forward instead G, a chartered accountant from a local firm. G was approached by F who is an old friend of A and whose own health prevented her from putting herself forward as a potential curator. G is a principle of both a chartered accountant's firm and a local trust company and is experienced in both accounting matters and is acting as a trustee. She is prepared to act for a fixed annual fee of £1,000 based on her assessment that the administration of the curatel will require twenty-four hours each year. If the time greatly exceeded this then she says she will come back to the Court to charge more, which we assume would be a proportionate increase.
3. Advocate Blomfield administers some twenty curatorship's and has a team assisting her. She has very helpfully produced an estimate of her likely fees on a worst case scenario for taking on and administering the curatorship and based on the limited information that she has at the moment. Without going into the detail of her costs estimate it is clear to us that whilst G may have under estimated the hours involved, her basic fees for administering the curatorship will be materially lower than those of Advocate Blomfield. There may be one off costs that will be incurred in to investigating the past financial transactions but that will be the same, we think, whoever is the curator.
4. Advocate Blomfield admittedly has more experience of acting as a curator but there is no question that G is more than qualified to undertake that role. Both are of course completely independent. The son was ambivalent as to who should be appointed, appreciating the perhaps greater experience of Advocate Blomfield, but being concerned at the cost her appointment might involve. F, who is an old friend of A as we have said, felt that A would be very concerned to keep the costs of this curatorship as low as possible.
5. Although it may be necessary to look into past transactions we can see nothing so complex or difficult that would require the undoubted skills that Advocate Blomfield as an experienced lawyer has. G is, we think, perfectly competent to deal with the issues that may arise and to deal with them.
6. We wish to make it clear that we do not in any way criticise the level of the fees which Advocate Blomfield would charge, which in our experience seem perfectly reasonable in the context of the fees charged by lawyers in the Island. The fact is that in our view the costs that will be incurred using G will be materially lower and that is a very important consideration.
7. Having taken into account all the circumstances and all the helpful information and advice we have received today we conclude that G should be appointed as curator and we so order. We would like to thank Advocate Blomfield for the time that she has given both in considering this matter, attending today and producing an estimate of her costs.
8. That is the decision of the Court.
