The High Court has refused five applicants access to a forensic accountant’s report on their father’s finances, while concluding that his property and financial affairs were being managed satisfactorily.
In a judgment delivered on 16 July 2015, Ms Justice Baker said the applicants were entitled to raise concerns with the court as “interested parties”. But their role was to trigger the court’s supervisory inquiry, not to receive the resulting report. The court said the donor’s enduring power of attorney gave his surviving attorney general authority to act without notifying the applicants.
The report, prepared for the court under section 12 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1996, followed an earlier judgment that directed further inquiry into issues raised by some of the donor’s adult children. They had expressed concern that spending by the attorney could leave their seriously ill father without sufficient resources for future care. They also raised questions about the attorney’s income from a company that was the donor’s primary income source, and the title to a substantial villa in the south of France formerly held jointly by the donor and his deceased wife.
The applicants argued that disclosure would protect their possible future interest in the donor’s estate and help put their minds at ease. The attorney’s counsel said the power of attorney imposed no notification requirement in their favour and gave the attorney unrestricted authority. The judge accepted that position, saying disclosure would fail to give effect to the donor’s directions and autonomy.
Although the applicants would not see the report, the judge said the administration of justice required her to state her conclusions in open court. After reviewing the report, she was satisfied that the donor had ample resources to meet anticipated and more remote needs, even alongside a considerable degree of discretionary expenditure. She said the donor’s capital was scarcely being used at the current spending level.
The judge was also satisfied that the attorney’s salary from the company was legally sound and neither excessive nor exceptional. She concluded that the donor’s financial affairs and property were being managed satisfactorily, with no further concerns for the court.
The judgment also addressed an earlier misunderstanding about accounts. The attorney had kept records of expenditure, receipts and other supporting documents, but had told her lawyers she had not kept accounts because she thought the inquiry concerned formal accountant-maintained accounts. The court said the applicants were not entitled to the report and could be satisfied that their concerns were not borne out by the inquiry.