Website Cookie Policy

We use cookies to give you the best possible online experience. If you continue, we’ll assume you are happy for your web browser to receive all cookies from our website.
See our cookie policy for more information.

Practice Areas

More Information

Leeds: 0113 244 6100

Sheffield: 0114 267 5588


Send us an enquiry

What are the Court of Protection’s powers when the subject of proceedings dies?

22 August 2018

Readers might remember that Mr Fitzgerald, a very persistent maker of Court of Protection applications, reappeared a few weeks ago when his latest application was dismissed as without merit.  The last instalment can be found here

It seems that Sir James Munby had not heard the last of the tireless Mr Fitzgerald after all.  Mr Fitzgerald made one more application just before Sir James Munby’s retirement.

In this application, Mr Fitzgerald asks for the recent judgement in his Aunt’s case (see blog post here) to be withdrawn because ‘ It is not given in any recognised court or jurisdiction; (2) It misrepresents the evidence presented in Application; (3) It displays transparent bias and injudicious prejudice.” ‘

The Judge commented:

‘I do not propose to take up time dealing with grounds (2) and (3). As readers of all my previous judgments will appreciate, these are merely the latest of many attempts by Mr Fitzgerald to rubbish any judgment by any judge with whom he chooses to disagree.’

Mr Fitzgerald was, he said, ‘unable or unwilling’ to understand the difference between the matter being transferred out of the Court of Protection (which it had not been) and the case simply being heard ion a different location by a Court of Protection judge.

Helpfully for practitioners, Mr Justice Munby sets out the Court of Protection’s powers when the subject of proceedings dies.  The position is:

‘Although the Court of Protection lacks jurisdiction to make substantive orders, whether health and welfare orders or property and affairs orders, after P has died, this does not mean it lacks jurisdiction where it is necessary to exercise jurisdiction to ‘tie up any loose ends’ – which is what I was doing here and, moreover at Mr Fitzgerald’s express invitation.  ‘

Unsurprisingly, Sir James Munby was not impressed with this latest application.  His summary says it all”

‘Mr Fitzgerald’s latest application is totally without merit. It is a time-wasting abuse of the process, which I accordingly strike out. If Mr Fitzgerald continues to display such forensic incontinence, he may find himself again subject to an extended civil restraint order.’



Firstly we wish Sir James Munby a long and happy retirement.

The clarification of the Court of Protection’s role is very helpful for practitioners.  Many people still seem to be under the impression that post death the Court of Protection must down tools.  That is not the case, at least as far as finishing off the procedural aspects.  Indeed, readers might remember that in the case of Gladys Meek, the Court of Protection made a point of deciding post Gladys’s death whether or not the identities of the ‘handbags and gladrags’ deputies who bought themselves cars, computers, handbags and other luxuries with their aunt’s money, could be revealed. (see blog post here) Senior Judge Lush decided that yes, they could, and so the wrongdoers were named and shamed.

For more information on Deputyships please click here

Lynne Bradey View Biography

Lynne Bradey


15 Apr 2021

Return to Work Guidance - Is it time to return to the workplace?

As the country emerges from lockdown, what do employers need to know about the rules on working from home?

12 Apr 2021

Could the new Community Ownership Fund benefit community-led housing groups?

Community groups will be able to bid for funding from June 2021, to help rescue local community assets at risk of being lost.

08 Apr 2021

Trust Registration Service and The Fifth Money Laundering Directive

A large number of trusts that were not previously required to register must now register on TRS in 2022.