Mr Kambli had been appointed as a panel Deputy in previous proceedings and these proceedings were to determine whether that appointment should be discharged and, if it was, who should be appointed as replacement Deputy.
Mr Kambli was the third Deputy to be appointed in this matter and he sought the discharge of his appointment on the basis of the breakdown in relations with family members, particularly AR, who was the father of MBR (the protected party in this matter).
Mr Kambli’s request was initially refused and it was noted in particular that:
- there had been an exceptional turnover of professional deputies in this matter already;
- on each occasion, the appointed Deputy either sought or agreed to the discharge of their appointment on the basis of a breakdown in the relations with family members, in particular AR;
- on each occasion further avoidable costs were incurred, reducing the funds available to meet the needs of MBR;
- the Deputy was appointed following contested proceedings, in which the person nominated for appointment by the family members ultimately failed to comply with the court directions, and the Deputyship was clearly referred to a member of the Public Guardian’s panel as “a particularly challenging case”;
- the Deputy’s statement established that “it is my belief that AR simply wishes for a deputy to accede to his own wishes and demands rather than act in MBR’s best interests, and that he deliberately causes a breakdown in relationship so that a new deputy who may accede to his wishes is appointed.”
Mr. Kambli’s position was that AR was “intent on breaking down any relationship he has with a Deputy by ‘Deputy shopping’ until he finds a Deputy that will accede to his demands” and that AR was “often rude, obstructive” and undermined his authority as Deputy.
It was acknowledged by the Public Guardian that another professional deputy being appointed “would not necessarily change anything in the family dynamics or the ability of the family to work with them” however, it considered that the Deputy’s appointment should be discharged and that an alternative panel Deputy be appointed instead.
It was concluded by HHJ Hilder that it was clear that the current deputyship arrangements could not be restored as they were not operating appropriately. It was in MBR’s best interests that Mr Kambli’s appointment be discharged and that, despite some concerns, KS and AQ were to be appointed as joint property and affairs Deputies for MBR until 1st October 2022.
The full judgement can be read here
If you have any questions regarding this summary case law please contact Christine Marsh here