The High Court’s recent decision in CGT, R (On the Application Of) v West Sussex County Council [2026] EWHC 293 (Admin) provides important clarity for deputies managing personal injury trusts. The case arose from a judicial review challenge to the local authority’s decision to refuse to fund CGT’s care needs from July 2024 onwards and to seek reimbursement of funding provided since 2020.
By way of background, CGT was born in 1994 and suffered a catastrophic brain injury at around three months old, leaving him with severe cognitive impairment, visual impairment, epilepsy and other lifelong disabilities. He requires daily care and has lived in supported accommodation since 2013. He lacks capacity to manage his financial affairs, and his mother was appointed as his property and financial affairs deputy by the Court of Protection in 2011.
In 2012, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) awarded him more than £3.5 million, including over £2.6 million specifically for future care. The award was conditional on the funds being placed into a discretionary trust for his benefit, with the Official Solicitor acting as trustee.
The local authority later refused to continue funding CGT’s care, arguing that capital in the personal injury trust counted as available resources and that ongoing public funding would amount to double recovery. The judicial review succeeded. The court rejected both arguments, holding that the decisions to cease funding and demand repayment were unlawful. It also confirmed that capital held in a properly constituted personal injury trust must be disregarded in full when assessing care funding under the Care Act 2014 and surrounding regulations.
For professional deputies, the implications are practical. A trust established from personal injury compensation does not reduce P’s statutory entitlement to care funding, even where the trust contains sums identified for future care. Deputies can manage P’s affairs in the knowledge that the existence of trust capital should not trigger withdrawal of public funding or retrospective recovery.
The judgment also narrows the reach of double recovery arguments in this context. Local authorities cannot rely on that principle to refuse or claw back statutory care funding. If duplication concerns are to be addressed, they belong at the point of settlement, in the structure of the award, or through Court of Protection oversight and not within the eligibility assessment itself. Deputies should ensure that trust documentation reflects P’s needs and that any undertakings or arrangements from prior deputies are understood, but should not assume those arrangements alter the statutory framework.
The decision is also a reminder of process. Trust capital is disregarded, but local authorities remain entitled to request information about the financial position. Deputies should provide what is necessary and accurate, without inviting a reinterpretation of the statutory test.
In practical terms, the judgment reinforces the deputy’s role in safeguarding compensation awards while preserving access to statutory care funding. Properly structured personal injury trusts remain effective protection, and local authority discretion does not displace the regulations.
If you have any questions, please get in touch with Ella Wilkinson (Ella.Wilkinson@clarionsolicitors.com) who is an Associate in the Costs & Litigation Funding Team at Clarion Solicitors, specialising in Court of Protection costs.