Case Update: High Court Appoints Relatives of Dementia Patient as Deputies After Fierce Legal Contest
By Wilbur Lua
In VUW and others v VUT and another and other appeals [2022] SGHCF 41, the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) (“High Court”) heard a hotly contested deputyship application, which saw the relatives and the friends of the dementia patient engaged in a fierce legal battle for deputyship rights of the patient. A Straits Times report of the decision can be found here.
Our team consisting of Lee Ee Yang, Ronald JJ Wong, Wilbur Lua and James Tan successfully represented three of the defendant’s relatives in obtaining a favourable outcome in the appeal.
The Plaintiffs have since filed an appeal to the Appellate Division of the High Court, which has since been dismissed on 10 March 2023.
Background
The patient in this case (“P”) was a 71-year-old-widow with no children, who had been diagnosed with dementia and found to be lacking in mental capacity.
The Plaintiffs were two friends of P who claimed that P was close to them and had entrusted them to look after her affairs after she was diagnosed with dementia.
The Defendants consisted of the adopted father of P and P’s relatives, who were concerned with the Plaintiffs’ motives towards P after learning that the Plaintiffs were appointed as P’s beneficiaries under her will and insurance policies after her diagnosis of dementia.
The deputyship contest was heard by the Family Court at first instance. The proceedings spanned more than two years, with numerous affidavits and summonses filed by both parties in the course of the proceedings.
Decision of the Lower Court
After considering the evidence and submissions of parties, the District Judge at first instance felt that neither side should be solely appointed as Deputies for P.
He noted that the Defendants had made various allegations about suspicious financial transactions involving P and the Plaintiffs, and given that the Plaintiffs did not disclose information about P’s financial affairs to the Court and to the Defendants, he could not conclude that the Defendants’ suspicions were unfounded.
However, he also took the view that the Defendants and their relatives were trying to prevent the Plaintiffs from having contact with P despite court orders allowing the Plaintiffs to have contact with P.
He formed the view that neither side was a particularly ideal choice for appointment as Deputies, and decided to appoint one person from each side as P’s Deputy.
Decision of the High Court
The High Court reversed the Family Court’s decision to appoint the 1st Plaintiff as a co-deputy and appointed the 3rd and 4th Defendants as P’s Deputies instead.
The High Court did not think it was appropriate for one Plaintiff and one Defendant to be appointed as Deputies for P as they had a difficult relationship where trust is very much lacking, which would negatively impact the welfare of P.
The High Court was also persuaded that the Plaintiffs were involved in questionable financial transactions after P’s diagnosis of dementia and there was sufficient cause for concern about placing the Plaintiffs in the position of Deputies for P.
As such, the High Court found that the concerns in appointing the Plaintiffs as Deputies weighed much more heavily than the concerns in appointing the Defendants, and allowed the Defendants’ appeals while dismissing the Plaintiffs’ cross-appeals.
Conclusion
This case illustrates the different issues and possible that a Court will have to balance when deciding on who is best placed to act as a deputy for a person who has lost mental capacity.
Executing and registering a Lasting Power of Authority (“LPA”) early while you are still healthy can be a simple and effective way to avoid such disputes from arising.
If you and/or a loved one require advice on how to execute and register an LPA or any related issues, please feel free to contact any member of our team.