Changes to the Deputy Standards 2023

Ellie Howard-TaylorLeave a comment

There has been an update to the existing Property & Finance and Health & Welfare Deputy Standards (‘Standards’), which will come into effect from mid-February 2023.

The single set of refreshed standards will apply to everyone who has been appointed as Deputy, including lay Deputies. Guidance tailored for professionals, public authorities and lay Deputies will also be published at the same time.

This is not the introduction of a new set of standards. The guiding principles of the refreshed standards remain the same and continue to be aligned with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). The main changes are to make the standards more focused.

What has been changed?

The number of standards has been reduced from more than 40 to 8 core areas, which reflect the duties and responsibilities of all Deputies. Much of the material included in the original standards has now been re-shaped and included within the guidance documents.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has contacted all Deputies to notify them of the changes.

The refreshed standards can be found at published at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/opg-deputy-standards.

Changes to Rolls Building Statements of Costs

Anna LockyerLeave a comment

As of 14 April 2026, more specific requirements became applicable to the filing and service and the format of statements of costs in the Chancery Division, TCC, Commercial Court and London Circuit Court of the Rolls Building.

  • Parties should file and serve an Excel version of N260 for all summary assessments, in addition to a signed read-only PDF.
  • Excel-Template-N260-Clean-1-4-26.xlsx is the correct template Excel version to use.

The relevant Practice Note can be found here:

Rolls Building Practice Note – Summary Assessments (2026) – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

*Practice Note of 13 March 2026 (which referenced N260A and N260B) can be disregarded.

Anna Lockyer is a Senior Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

Who is “Carrying on the Conduct of Litigation”? Guidance from the Court of Appeal in CILEX v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369

Ellena HunterLeave a comment

Background

In CILEX v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369, the Court of Appeal provided important clarification on the interpretation of the phrase “carry on the conduct of litigation” in the Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”). The judgment addresses the question whether an unauthorised person, working under the supervision of an authorised individual, may lawfully perform litigation tasks without committing a criminal offence. It further provides some guidance on what acts are unlikely to constitute the conduct of litigation.

The appeal arose from a High Court decision which held that unauthorised persons who performed acts constituting the conduct of litigation, even under the supervision of an authorised individual, were themselves carrying on a reserved legal activity contrary to section 14 of the LSA 2007. That interpretation had significant implications for law firms, law centres, and access to justice.

Legislation

The LSA 2007 identifies the ‘conduct of litigation’ as a reserved legal activity. Schedule 2 provides that it includes:

  • The issuing of proceedings;
  • The commencement, prosecution and defence of proceedings; and
  • The performance of ancillary functions in relation to those proceedings.

Section 14 makes it a criminal offence to carry on a reserved legal activity unless the person is authorised to do so. The central issue on the appeal was whether an unauthorised employee who performs litigation tasks under supervision is themselves ‘carrying on’ the conduct of litigation, or whether that activity remains attributable to the authorised individual who retains responsibility for the case.

Can unauthorised persons ‘carry on the conduct of litigation’ if they carry out acts that constitute the conduct of litigation under the supervision of authorised individuals?

At first instance, the judge drew a distinction between assisting or supporting an authorised individual in litigation and conducting litigation under supervision.

The judge held that only the former was lawful. On that analysis, unauthorised persons could assist with litigation work but could not perform acts which fell within the statutory definition of the conduct of litigation, even where an authorised person supervised their work and retained ultimate responsibility.

That approach reflected the submissions of the Law Society and the SRA and would have required close, step‑by‑step oversight by authorised individuals, including prior approval of documents before they were used, even in urgent cases.

The Court of Appeal rejected that interpretation. It held that the ordinary meaning of the statutory language distinguishes between the tasks which make up the conduct of litigation and the direction, control and responsibility for those tasks.

The Court concluded that an unauthorised person does not carry on the conduct of litigation merely because they perform litigation tasks for and on behalf of an authorised individual. Provided the authorised person retains responsibility and puts in place appropriate arrangements for delegation and supervision, it is the authorised person who is carrying on the reserved legal activity.

The Court, therefore, held that the distinction adopted at first instance between ‘assisting’ and ‘conducting litigation under supervision’ was incorrect.

What acts constitute conducting litigation?

The Court of Appeal declined to set out an exhaustive list, however, it confirmed that a number of activities are unlikely to constitute the conduct of litigation, including:

  • Pre‑litigation work;
  • Giving legal advice in connection with proceedings;
  • Correspondence with opposing parties;
  • Gathering evidence;
  • Instructing and liaising with experts or counsel; and
  • Signing statements of truth or other documents which the CPR permits a legal representative (defined in CPR 2.3 including a solicitor’s employee) to sign.

Delegation and supervision

The Court emphasised that the LSA 2007 does not mandate a single model of supervision. There had to be proper direction, management supervision and control. However, the level of supervision required will depend on the circumstances. In some cases, particularly complex or high‑risk matters, closer oversight and prior approval may be appropriate. In other, more routine cases, supervision may properly consist of structured systems, regular meetings, and sampling of work.

The statute does not require prior authorisation of every task in every case. The question is whether the authorised individual has retained responsibility and exercised appropriate direction and control.

The Court of Appeal made clear that details of the appropriate supervision were a matter for the regulators. Following the judgment, the Law Society has issued a Practice Note which is key reading for firms, solicitors and their employees as it sets out its view of good practice and practical steps firms can take. Further guidance is awaited from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s judgment has provided reassurance across the legal industry and has restored a practical and workable model of legal service delivery which aligns with the regulatory objectives of the LSA 2007, including improving access to justice. It confirms that the LSA 2007 is concerned not with who performs individual litigation tasks, but with who retains responsibility for them. Unauthorised staff may lawfully carry out litigation tasks under appropriate supervision, without committing a criminal offence, provided responsibility remains with an authorised individual. However, an element of uncertainty remains particularly as what amounts to appropriate supervision depends on the circumstances, and we can therefore expect to see further developments.

Ellena Hunter is an Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

The importance of being ‘certain’ in a retainer, whether a Contentious Business Agreement or not

Anna LockyerLeave a comment

A billionaire client (C) has been successful in an application in the High Court for an assessment of a series of invoices totalling more than $35 million, raised by C’s legal representative US firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (D).

In Safra v Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP [2026] EWHC 703 (SCCO), Costs Judge Leonard examined whether there was justification to order an assessment of the invoices in the context of the Solicitors Act 1974, specifically:

  • Whether the letter of engagement constituted a Contentious Business Agreement (CBA) within the meaning of Section 59 of the 1974 Act
  • If D was entitled to deliver interim statutory invoices and whether the invoices were compliant with the relevant requirements

Background

D had acted for C in a dispute over the estate of C’s father, a wealthy Brazilian banker, which involved several complex arbitrations.

C’s application of 17 December 2024 disputed the invoices rendered between 10 December 2022 and 17 September 2024 in relation to this matter.

C contended that “$35 million is an unusually large sum to incur over less than two years in even the heaviest of litigation”. Not only did C submit that time charges were high, they argued expenses and disbursements were also “of a surprising nature and amount”.

It was common ground that the work undertaken was ‘contentious business’ for the purpose of the 1974 Act and that the engagement letter did not need to be a labelled a CBA, to be a CBA.

Notably, the engagement letter contained a right to apply for assessment, which is not consistent with a retainer being a CBA.

The benefits of a CBA for D

It would have suited D if the engagement letter had been deemed a CBA because under section 60(1) of the 1974 Act, costs incurred under a CBA shall not be subject to assessment. D could have resisted the application on that basis.

That said, 61(4B) of the Act allows for assessment of the number of hours worked and whether they are excessive, when a CBA is relied on and when the client objects to the costs generally, providing the client has not alleged the CBA is unfair or unreasonable; the scope for C to challenge would be limited in these circumstances.

Engagement Letter not a CBA as lacked certainty

Despite D submitting that the terms of the engagement letter were negotiated with C – an experienced and commercially sophisticated client with very experienced lawyers, and that the  arbitrations had been extremely complex; their likely course unpredictable at the time of the engagement letter; and the full scope of the work unknown at the outset, it was determined by the Costs Judge that D’s engagement letter did not amount to a CBA.

There was acknowledgment that the long hours and expenses were commensurate with the nature and scale of work and with the value, weight and complexity of the litigation, but the judge expressed concern with the lack of financial information provided to C:

“unilateral, open-ended provisions for hourly rate increases, the amounts and timing of which were entirely at the discretion of the Defendant, are inconsistent with the requisite characteristic of certainty.”

D had not kept C informed of costs and failed to advise of rate increases of up to $2,095 per hour. The engagement letter provided for only a broad range of current hourly rates, capable of unilateral alteration by D. No fixed fee provision or a fee fixing mechanism existed.

It was made clear that certainty is paramount when determining whether a retainer is a CBA.

The Judge went on to say that if he had found the engagement letter to be a CBA, he would have set it aside in any event, because the unreasonably incorporated unilateral open-ended provisions, prevented C from challenging increases to hourly rates.

Chamberlain Bill, not Interim Statutory Invoices

Although it was determined that the engagement letter allowed D to deliver interim statutory invoices, and that monthly statements had been provided, the description of the monthly statements in the engagement letter and the invoices did not correspond.

The invoices were found to lack “the requisite element of finality” to be compliant interim statutory invoices.

Instead, they were held to collectively constitute a single Chamberlain bill, delivered to C on 17 September 2024, capable of assessment in its entirety under section 70(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974, as the bill had already been partially paid.

The Judge made clear that he would have exercised the court’s discretion and established that “special circumstances” as per section 70(3) were applicable, to justify an order for assessment in any event, as there was an evident failure by D to provide adequate costs information.

“The Defendant’s failure to notify the Claimant of its hourly rate increases seems symptomatic of a lack of awareness of the importance of keeping the client fully informed of the costs position. However much he would have known about what was being done for him, and however pleased he may have been at the level of service provided, the Claimant was not regularly being kept aware of what it was costing him.”

Costs Judge Leonard identified numerous failings throughout this matter relating to communications between lawyer and client regarding costs, which ultimately resulted in the order for assessment. Concluding the judgment with a determination that special circumstances would have been established due to inadequate costs information, even if the invoices had met the interim statutory invoice criteria, exemplifies the extent of potential consequences if clients are not kept clearly and fully informed on costs.

Anna Lockyer is a Senior Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

Costs Consequences of the Claimant’s Late Acceptance of the Defendant’s Part 36 offer

angelanakoLeave a comment

A recent Court of Appeal decision provided important clarification on how legal costs were calculated when a Part 36 settlement offer was accepted late.

Background

The Claimant in Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 217 was injured in a road traffic accident in March 2018. Whilst the claim began under the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) Protocol, it exited the protocol and in February 2021, the Claimant issued Part 7 proceedings, valuing the claim up to £150,000 supported by several expert reports.

The Defendant admitted liability in March 2021 and made a Part 36 offer in the sum of £45,000. The Claimant did not accept this offer within the 21-day relevant period set by the rules. Consequently, the claim was allocated to the multi-track in January 2022, which typically allows lawyers to recover their costs based on what is considered reasonable rather than fixed amounts. The Part 36 offer was accepted in July 2022.

As the Claimant accepted the Part 36 offer outside the 21-day relevant period, and once the claim had been assigned to the multi-track, there was a dispute as to whether the costs could be recovered on a standard basis or were limited to fixed recoverable costs.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal considered the version of the civil procedure rules which applied at the time and held that the key date is when the 21-day period for accepting the Part 36 offer expires, rather than when the offer is eventually accepted, meaning that Claimants who accept an offer after the relevant period will generally be entitled to the amount of costs they would have received had they accepted the offer on the last day of the relevant period. As during that 21-day period the claim remained within the fixed costs regime, the Claimant was entitled to fixed costs which applied at that stage of the proceedings.

The court highlighted that the rules governing settlement offers are designed to encourage early settlement and clarity surrounding financial risk, therefore Defendants should be able to rely on the costs environment that existed when the offer’s relevant period expired. Allowing later events, such as the case being allocated to the multi-track, to change the cost consequences would create unnecessary uncertainty. The court outlined that:

“it is hard to see why a Claimant who [accepted the offer outside the relevant period]…should be in a better position than one who accepts the offer within time.”

Conclusion

The key point of this judgment is that if an offer is made and expires while the case is still within the fixed‑costs regime, the fixed‑costs rules apply to the consequences of accepting that offer, even if the case later evolves or moves outside the fixed‑costs regime.

Although this decision was made in the context of the pre-October 2023 fixed costs rules, it is expected that this is the same approach the Courts will apply under the new fixed‑costs rules introduced in October 2023. That is because those rules are also built around clear stages and predictable cost consequences.

Angela Nako is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

SCCO Updates Filing Guidance for Court of Protection Bills

Leah MorrisLeave a comment

The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) has earlier this week issued revised guidance on filing supporting papers for Court of Protection bills, coming into effect on 20 April 2026. These updates aim to streamline the assessment process and improve efficiency for both practitioners and Costs Officers.

The SCCO continues to support two methods for submitting supporting documents: digital bundles provided via the Document Upload Centre (DUC) and physical files of papers sent in the post or DX. A summary of the latest guidance is set out below.

1) Digital Bundles via the Document Upload Centre (DUC)

The Document Upload Centre (DUC) allows users to submit supporting papers electronically and is the SCCO’s preferred method, provided submissions follow the required format.

It is important to note:

  • The DUC is only for supporting documents
  • Key documents, including the bill of costs, N258B and court orders, must still be filed via CE-File in the usual way
  • To access the DUC, users must request a link by emailing the SCCO

In terms of formatting, bundles must be in PDF format only. File names should include the SCCO reference number, the Protected Party’s surname, and the billing period or case type (for example, statutory will or property sale). The SCCO also find it helpful if an indication of the bill type is included within the file name, such as general management with the relevant period dates, so it is recommended that this is included.

Where possible, a single bundle should be submitted. If multiple files are necessary, these should be clearly labelled with the relevant date ranges rather than uploading individual documents separately.

Documents must be arranged in chronological order (oldest first), with key documents placed at the beginning of the bundle. These include:

  • The OPG102 and OPG105
  • Client care letter
  • Disbursement evidence
  • Counsel fee invoices

The level of detail within documents remains important. Emails and file notes should clearly show dates and times, with correspondence identifying both sender and recipient. File and attendance notes must also record the fee earner completing the work and the time claimed.

To assist Costs Officers in locating documents quickly, the SCCO recommend:

  • Including a detailed index or bookmarks with clear dates and descriptions so items can be easily identified and cross-referenced against the bill of costs
  • Adding hyperlinks to documents where possible
  • Avoiding duplication of documents or email chains

In terms of timing:

  • For existing cases: upload at the same time as filing the bill (once the SCCO reference number is available)
  • For new cases: upload after receiving confirmation of the SCCO reference number (e.g. SC-2025-COP-001234)

2) Physical Paper Filing

Firms can still submit hard copy bundles by post. While digital filing is encouraged, it is not mandatory.

If submitting papers physically, they should be sent to:

Senior Courts Costs Office
Thomas More Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
DX: 44454 Strand

Many of the same principles apply to paper bundles as to electronic ones. Files should be clearly labelled with the SCCO reference number, the Protected Party’s name and the billing period or case type, and documents should be organised in chronological order.

Key documents should be placed at the front of the bundle (or the first bundle if multiple are submitted), including:

  • The OPG102 and OPG105
  • Client care letter
  • Disbursement evidence
  • Counsel fee invoices
  • A copy of the e-filing acceptance notice, including return details
  • Where multiple boxes or bundles are required:
  • Label them sequentially (e.g. Box 1 of 2)
  • Arrange documents chronologically across all boxes and bundles
  • In terms of timing:
  • Papers should be sent as soon as possible after CE-File acceptance
  • They must be submitted within 28 days

Mandatory Filing Notification

Each time a bill is submitted via CE-File, you must clearly state how you intend to file supporting documents. This should be included in the “filing comments” by confirming either ‘paper’ or ‘DUC’. Failure to include this information may result in the filing being rejected.

Final Thoughts

These updates from the SCCO reflect a continued move toward digital efficiency while still accommodating traditional filing methods.

For practitioners, the key takeaway is simple: clarity, organisation, and compliance with formatting rules are essential. Adopting the DUC where possible, and doing so correctly, will help avoid delays and ensure a smoother assessment process, particularly given the continued delays and significant turnaround time for receipt of assessed bills, which remains in excess of a year at present.

For further guidance or to request DUC access, contact the SCCO directly at scco@justice.gov.uk.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

Drafting Costs Management Orders

Anna LockyerLeave a comment

There can be uncertainty around the content and wording to include in draft costs management orders, a point reinforced by Senior Master Cook in Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited [2025] EWHC 3207 (KB) when he ordered a re-draft of an incorrectly drawn costs management order, observing “parties seldom draft proper or effective costs management orders”, despite his King’s Bench Division Guide note on Cost Management Hearings, setting this out at Paragraph 13 of Annex 8:

Essentially, confirmation of any agreed/not agreed incurred costs, the amounts by which the budgeted costs of each party have been agreed or approved (as required by CPR 3.15(2)) and any comments made by the court at the hearing with regards to the predications the assumptions are based on, should be clearly recorded on the Order. These statements may include the extent of disclosure; the number of days any experts will attend trial; and whether a mediation or some other settlement meeting is anticipated.

There are occasions when a table can be included in the costs management order that sets out the budgets’ figures, distinguishing those agreed from those approved.

If directed by the court, costs set out in this tabular form, may replace the requirement for front sheet costs budgets.

There are also certain judges who prefer an additional provision in a costs management order, referring to how departures from budgets would only be allowed with good reason, as per CPR 3.18(b). This may be provided for as follows:

“This costs management order is without prejudice to any issue which a party wishes to take on detailed assessment save that the court will not depart from the receiving party’s last approved or agreed budget unless there is good reason to do so.”

In recent years, templates have remained mostly unchanged, but the courts seem increasingly focused on ensuring costs management orders are properly prepared. Having a correct draft ready ahead of a costs management hearing, can be crucial to obtaining the desired outcome.

Anna Lockyer is a Senior Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

When High-Value Claims Still Require Budgeting: Garry White & Ors v Uber London Limited & Ors

Katie SpencerLeave a comment

The Claim

In the case of Garry White & Ors v Uber London Limited & Ors, approximately 13,000 London black cab drivers issued group proceedings against companies within the Uber group, claiming losses of around £199 million. A further claim, valued at approximately £141 million, was brought by the assignee of two private hire operators, Kabbee and Iride.

Although the total value of the litigation is around £340 million, each driver’s individual claim is relatively modest (circa £15,000), making group litigation a proportionate approach.

The claims arise from allegations that Uber unlawfully obtained a private hire vehicle operator licence by misrepresenting its operating model. It is said that this enabled Uber to compete directly with licensed black cab drivers while undercutting regulated fares, causing substantial financial loss between 2012 and March 2018.

The Preliminary Limitation Issue

Uber denies liability and argues that the claims were issued outside the six-year limitation period.

The Claimants rely on Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, arguing that time did not begin to run until they could reasonably have discovered the relevant facts, which they say occurred in June 2018 following a licensing appeal hearing.

The court has ordered that limitation be determined at a standalone five-day preliminary trial. A representative sample of 20 Claimants (10 chosen by each side) will be used to assess when sufficient knowledge arose. If the Defendants succeed, the litigation may conclude at that stage.

The Costs Budgeting Decision

A significant procedural issue to be determined was whether costs budgeting should apply.

Although claims valued at £10 million or more are ordinarily excluded from the costs management regime, the court retains discretion. The Defendants sought to disapply budgeting, relying on the overall high value of the claim, the existence of litigation funding and ATE insurance, and the alleged additional burden budgeting would impose.

The Claimants argued that, despite the aggregate value, the case is fundamentally a mass claim by individuals of limited means. They required clarity regarding potential adverse costs exposure and future funding requirements.

The Court agreed with the Claimants. While acknowledging that very high-value claims are generally unsuitable for costs management, this case was considered materially different. The modest individual claims and group structure justified greater costs oversight and transparency.

Why This Matters

This decision reinforces that the £10 million threshold is not decisive. Courts will look beyond the headline value of proceedings and consider the nature of the parties and the practical impact of costs exposure.

In large-scale group actions involving individuals with limited financial resources, costs budgeting may be viewed as an important tool to promote fairness, proportionality and effective case management and there are steps you can take ahead of the first CMC if you consider a CMO to be useful in your case.

Katie Spencer is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors and can be contacted on 07741 988 925 or at Katie.Spencer@clarionsolicitors.com.

Gifting – OPG updates gift giving guidance

hawamayetLeave a comment

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has issued updated guidance on gift giving, with particular emphasis on loans and circumstances in which Deputies or Attorneys may seek to benefit themselves.

The guidance makes clear that a conflict of interest is likely to arise where an Attorney makes a gift or loan to themselves, or to members of their family, from the donor’s assets.

Further emphasis had been made relation to loans and the position is unequivocal: Attorneys should seek prior authority from the Court of Protection before making any loan to themselves or to their family.

A general authority contained within a Deputyship Order does not extend to the power to make loans. Deputies must not enter such arrangements unless they have obtained specific authority from the Court of Protection.

In respect of gifts, the OPG cautions: “If you do accept a gift for yourself, the Court of Protection can look carefully at whether the [donor] had capacity and may decide you went beyond your authority.”

The guidance further stresses that where a proposed gift does not fall within the statutory exceptions, an application must be made to the Court of Protection for approval.

 

For a refresher of the OPG gifting guidance, please see below.

Before making a decision regarding a gift to be made, 2 key points must be considered by the Deputy:

  1. Does P have capacity to make this decision themselves?
  2. If they lack capacity, is the decision in their best interests?

Best interests entails consideration of:

  • P’s past and present wishes
  • Their beliefs and values
  • Their relationships
  • Their financial security

 

What legally counts as a “Gift”?

  • Cash transfers
  • Cheques
  • Bank transfers
  • Selling property at an undervalue
  • Transferring shares
  • Forgiving a debt
  • Interest-free loans
  • Paying school fees or other costs for someone else
  • Adding someone to a property title
  • Setting up trusts for others
  • If full market value is not received in return, the transaction will usually be treated as a gift.

 

When gifts can be made without Court approval

Three conditions must be satisfied:

1: The gift is on a customary occasion

“Customary” refers to occasions that are culturally or socially normal in the context of the person’s life.

Examples include:

  • Birthdays
  • Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hanukkah
  • Weddings or civil partnerships
  • Anniversaries
  • New births

 

2: The recipient is connected

The gift must be made to:

  • A family member
  • A friend or other person connected to them
  • A charity they have supported or might reasonably have been expected to support

 

3: The gift is reasonable in value

What is “reasonable” will depend on:

  • The size of the estate
  • P’s anticipated future care costs
  • Life expectancy
  • Income against expenditure
  • Existing financial commitments
  • Previous gifting patterns

 

The de minimis exceptions

The Court of Protection recognises that, in limited circumstances, a gift may technically exceed a Deputy’s authority but only to a minor extent such that a formal application is not required. These are referred to as ‘de minimis exceptions’ and apply only where P’s estate has a value of £325,000 or more.

When determining whether a gift falls within the de minimis exception, the Deputy must consider:

  • P’s life expectancy
  • The affordability of the proposed gift
  • Whether the proposed gift would affect P’s care costs, standard of care or quality of life
  • Whether there is any evidence that P would object to the gift being made on their behalf

The de minimis exception does not apply in the following circumstances, and an application to the Court of Protection will still be required:

  • Loans to the Deputy or members of their family
  • Investments in the Deputy’s business
  • Sales or purchases at an undervalue
  • Transactions giving rise to a conflict of interest between P and the Deputy

 

What Deputies cannot do without Court approval

An application must be made to the Court of Protection where a Deputy proposes to:

  • Make substantial gifts outside normal customary occasions
  • Undertake inheritance tax mitigation through significant lifetime gifting
  • Transfer property to family members
  • Create trusts
  • Use P’s funds to maintain someone other than P
  • Make loans
  • Alter property ownership structures
  • Equalise inheritance between children
  • Continue a historic pattern of high-value gifting

 

For the full guidance please click on the link Giving gifts – GOV.UK

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

 

Can a Trust Corporation be appointed as a Deputy?

Tanya ForanLeave a comment

In the Matter of AB [2026] EWCOP 11 (T2) (5 February 2026) Her Honour Judge Hilder considered various factors when deciding if a Trust Corporation could be appointed as a deputy.

Key Facts

 The matter concerned an incapacitated adult (“AB”) and issues relating to the appointment and responsibilities of a deputy. In this case, a trust corporation made an application to be appointed as AB’s deputy. The trust corporation, whilst not directly regulated, had employees with day-to-day management of the matter, who were regulated by the SRA.

In this case, the Court was required to address practice and procedure in the context of deputies who have been appointed to manage the finances and property of someone who lacks capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

A major practical issue in this case was whether the trust corporation deputy was covered by appropriate professional indemnity insurance. This is an important protection for both the deputy and AB in the event of any claims that may arise from deputyship decisions.

The judgment illustrates how the Court of Protection will scrutinise the credentials and safeguards associated with professional deputies, especially when the deputyship is not a family member or layperson. In this matter, the application was for the appointment of a trust corporation as opposed to an individual and whilst the day to day file handler was a solicitor, the trust was not a law firm and was not therefore regulated by the SRA.

Previous Case Law

In the judgement from Various Incapacitated Persons and the Appointment of Trust Corporations as Deputies [2018] EWCOP 3, it was provided that two types of trust corporation were acceptable either where the trust corporation is itself authorised by the SRA OR where;

a. all the directors of the trust corporation are solicitors and it employs no one (save to the extent that it employs a company secretary); and

b. the trust corporation will retain its associated legal practice to carry out all practical work in relation to the management of the incapacitated person’s property and affairs; and

c. the trust corporation is covered by the professional indemnity insurance policy of its associated authorised legal practice on the same terms as that practice

AND that the trust corporation will inform the Public Guardian immediately if any of these things change

with the following undertakings:

1. The proposed deputy (the trust corporation) is a trust corporation within the meaning of section 64(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and can lawfully act as such; and the trust corporation will inform the Public Guardian immediately if that ceases to be the case.

2. The trust corporation will comply with the Public Guardian’s published standards for professional deputies.

3. EITHER

(i)        The trust corporation is authorised by the SRA; OR

(ii)      all the directors of the trust corporation are solicitors, and it employs no one (save to the extent that it employs a company secretary); and

(iii)       the trust corporation will retain its associated legal practice to carry out all practical work in relation to the management of the incapacitated person’s property and affairs; and

(iv)       the trust corporation is covered by the professional indemnity insurance policy of its associated authorised legal practice on the same terms as that practice.

4. The trust corporation will notify the Public Guardian immediately if there is any change to any of the matters set out in paragraph 3 above.

5. The trust corporation undertakes that it (or where relevant its associated authorised legal practice) will maintain insurance cover that:

(i)       covers the work of the trust corporation and

(ii)      is compliant with SRA Minimum Terms and Conditions.

6. The trust corporation will lodge a copy of the insurance policy referred to in paragraph 5 above with the Public Guardian on appointment and will inform the Public Guardian immediately if there is any reduction in the terms or level of the insurance cover.

AB [2026]

In the initial application Enable & Thrive Ltd was unable to comply with undertakings from previous case law, there were failures to notify family members of the application and when family members were notified, they objected to the application. There was also a lack of detail provided to the court in relation to AB’s circumstances.

It was necessary for the court to look at whether other safeguards existed and the court found that the applicant had;

  • A solicitor director regulated by the SRA.
  • Professional indemnity insurance.
  • Staff training.
  • Safeguarding procedures.
  • Annual reporting to the OPG.
  • Requirements for a security bond.

Conclusion

In this matter the third undertaking from Various Incapacitated Persons and the Appointment of Trust Corporations as Deputies [2018] EWCOP 3 could not be satisfied as the trust corporation was not regulated by the SRA and to compensate for this the following was to be complied with:

  1. The corporation confirms it is a Category 3 trust corporation, and names the solicitor‑director(s) regulated by the SRA.
  2. Only the named solicitor‑director(s) may be listed on any client account.
  3. It must notify the Public Guardian of any change to these matters.
  4. It must still comply with the undertakings on insurance found in The First Judgment.

Whilst this could be complied with, a hearing took place and all parties agreed that the trust corporation be discharged and a panel deputy should be appointed in its place.

Legal Significance

The case underscores that corporate deputies must demonstrate appropriate insurance and oversight mechanisms before being appointed or continuing in the role.

It also highlights practical Court of Protection concerns about the capacity of professional deputies to manage complex financial affairs and ensure protection of vulnerable persons’ interests.

It was accepted that the risks to AB included the potential misappropriation of funds, financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability. Her Honour Judge Hilder also noted that “membership of professional associations is not the same as regulation.”

If you have any questions on the information above or have any general queries with regard to seeking costs, please contact me at Tanya.Foran@clarionsolicitors.com

Understanding the Role of Each Grade Fee Earner in Court of Protection: A Breakdown of Responsibilities

Leah MorrisLeave a comment

Navigating the complexities of Court of Protection requires a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the various fee earners involved in the process. From apprentices and paralegals through to senior partners, each grade of fee earner plays a vital part in managing and overseeing costs, ensuring that both legal obligations and client needs are met efficiently. In this blog, we will explore the specific tasks and duties that correspond to each grade of fee earner, offering insight into how their work contributes to the overall success of Court of Protection cases and the accurate management of associated costs.

Grade D

Grade D fee earners refer to trainee solicitors, paralegals, and other fee earners, such as administrative assistants. These fee earners are not qualified lawyers.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade D fee earners include the following:

  • Arranging payments
  • Reviewing invoices
  • Considering incoming correspondence
  • Liaising with the DWP in relation to benefits
  • Preparing standard forms, such as banking forms
  • Amending standing orders
  • Considering bank statements
  • Attending the property for insurance visits.

These tasks are undertaken by Grade D fee earners to assist with the Protected Party’s daily life. Grade D fee earners will often be delegated tasks by more senior fee earners or seek instructions to reduce the costs incurred to the Protected Party. The tasks carried out usually require minimal specialist knowledge and consist of simpler duties to enable the day-to-day management of the case.

Grade C

Grade C fee earners consist of solicitors or legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience. These fee earners are usually qualified, however, senior paralegals can also be categorised as Grade C based on extensive Court of Protection experience.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade C fee earners include the following:

  • Preparing the annual Deputyship report
  • Preparing benefits forms
  • Considering the insurance position
  • Reviewing care plans
  • Drafting COP forms

Grade C fee earners usually have regular day-to-day conduct of the file and will complete tasks to reduce the costs incurred to the Protected Party. However, these tasks may be slightly more complex and require further specialist knowledge than unqualified persons (Grade D) to enable completion. In practice, Grade C fee earners are often the backbone of the day-to-day management of the case. They ensure that routine matters such as reporting, correspondence, and documentation are handled effectively while providing intermediate-level legal support. Their ability to balance both practical and legal considerations helps keep costs manageable while still meeting legal standards.

Grade B

Grade B fee earners include solicitors and legal executives who have been qualified for a minimum of four years.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade B fee earners include the following:

  • Liaising with P and their family as the main point of contact
  • Preparing budgets
  • Preparing Witness Statements
  • Liaising with the care home regarding P
  • Making simpler best interests decisions

Claiming Grade B in cases is challenging due to the complexity of tasks to be undertaken, requiring extensive legal knowledge that would necessitate a more senior fee earner than Grade D or C. However, the tasks are not quite complex enough to warrant the expertise of a Grade A fee earner, such as the Deputy. As there is no exhaustive list of specific tasks, it can be difficult to justify why a Grade B fee earner was required to conduct the work in the place of a lower grade fee earner. Grade B fee earners take on a supervisory role in cases, often overseeing the more detailed aspects of the case while ensuring compliance with Court of Protection requirements. Their work bridges the gap between the more routine tasks carried out by Grade C or D fee earners and the high-level strategic oversight of a Grade A fee earner.

Grade A

Grade A fee earners consist of solicitors and legal executives who have been qualified for over 8 years.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade A fee earners include the following:

  • Certifying and signing documents
  • Approving payments
  • Making complex and costly best interests decisions
  • Delegating tasks
  • Attending on P for the annual Deputy visit
  • Attending on the IFA
  • Reviewing investment and portfolio reports

Grade A fee earners have minimal overall day-to-day navigation of the matter due to the higher hourly rate charged and therefore the additional costs that would be incurred to the Protected Party. This is because they are focused on providing specialised expertise or high-level legal advice rather than managing the day-to-day administrative tasks and procedural aspects of a case. Their role is usually more strategic, handling complex legal issues and ensuring that the case aligns with broader legal principles. In practice, Grade A fee earners are responsible for making decisions with long-term implications, including the management of assets, complex best interests decisions, and compliance with legal requirements. As a result, the administrative tasks, client communication and file management responsibilities often fall to more junior staff, such as Grade C fee earners or paralegals, who are responsible for maintaining the case on a practical level. This division allows Grade A fee earners to focus on their area of expertise while delegating routine tasks to those with less specialised experience.

In conclusion, understanding the specific responsibilities of each grade fee earner in Court of Protection cases is essential for both managing costs effectively and ensuring the protection and care of vulnerable individuals. From the foundational tasks handled by junior fee earners to the more complex responsibilities undertaken by senior professionals, each role plays a vital part in maintaining the smooth operation of the case. By clearly outlining the tasks and responsibilities across different grades, legal teams can work more efficiently, ensuring that every aspect of the case is addressed with the appropriate level of expertise. This collaborative approach helps to balance both legal and financial obligations, ultimately benefiting the clients who rely on the Court of Protection system for support and guidance.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.