Jessica Jarvis

When an individual under a Court of Protection deputyship moves abroad, deputies may assume that their role automatically ends, or that managing P’s assets from England will become impossible. However, the recent decision in Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation Ltd v KS & Ors [2025] EWCOP 7 provides much-needed clarity on when and how the Court of Protection retains jurisdiction over a deputyship after P relocates.

This case is a crucial precedent for deputies handling cross-border asset management, particularly in non-Contracting States under the Hague Conventions. It confirms that a deputyship does not automatically end just because P becomes habitually resident abroad. Instead, the CoP may still oversee P’s financial affairs, provided their assets remain in England and Wales.

This article explores the key lessons from the case and provides practical guidance for deputies managing international moves.

Background

The case concerned KS, a 14-year-old girl with severe disabilities resulting from a birth injury. She had been awarded a £7.75 million clinical negligence settlement, managed by her property and affairs deputy, Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation Ltd.

In 2018, KS’s family relocated to India, where they found better healthcare, schooling, and lower care costs. Despite the move, KS’s entire estate remained in England, including:

• £5.1 million in an asset management portfolio
• £1.1 million held in the Court Funds Office
• Other investments in deputyship accounts

The deputy applied for specific authorities to manage KS’s assets, including purchasing properties in India and making gifts to her family. However, KS’s litigation friend (the Official Solicitor) argued that the CoP no longer had jurisdiction, as KS was habitually resident in India. They claimed that the Indian courts, not the CoP, should oversee her financial affairs.

The central legal question was: Does the CoP retain jurisdiction over a deputyship when P moves abroad, and if so, to what extent?

Key Takeaways

The Court of Protection Can Retain Jurisdiction Over English Assets, Even if P Lives Abroad

A major concern in this case was whether habitual residence determines the CoP’s authority over deputyships. The Official Solicitor argued that once KS became habitually resident in India, the CoP lost jurisdiction over her affairs.

However, the Court rejected this argument. It ruled that while KS was now habitually resident in India, the deputyship remained valid because:

• KS’s assets were still in England and Wales.
• Existing protective measures (such as the deputyship) remain in force under Hague 34, Article 14, unless the new country intervenes.

This means that if P moves abroad but their assets remain in England, the CoP continues to oversee those assets. Deputies should not assume their appointment ends unless:

• The new country formally takes control of P’s assets, or
• The CoP makes an order discharging the deputyship.

A Deputyship Does Not Automatically End When P’s Habitual Residence Changes

A common misconception is that a deputyship ceases if P relocates permanently. In this case, the Official Solicitor initially argued that the deputyship should be discharged. Later, they conceded that it remained valid.

The Court confirmed that:

• A deputyship appointment does not “expire” when P moves abroad.
• The deputy can still make financial decisions regarding English-based assets.
• The deputy must comply with any foreign legal requirements that may impact their role.

However, if the new country challenges the deputyship or imposes conflicting orders, the deputy may need further guidance from the CoP.

Deputies Must Understand the Legal Framework of P’s New Country

One of the biggest practical challenges in this case was India’s approach to guardianship and asset management. Under Indian law:

• A minor’s assets must be managed by a “natural legal guardian” (usually a parent).
• A UK deputy is not automatically recognised as having authority over P’s financial affairs.
• The family could nominate an Indian guardian, but this would be subject to Indian court approval.

This highlights a key risk for deputies. Even if the CoP retains jurisdiction over English assets, the new country may impose its own rules on how those assets are handled.

Before a move abroad, deputies should:

1. Seek legal advice in the new country to confirm whether UK deputyship orders will be recognised.
2. Consider whether local guardianship will be required for assets or financial decisions abroad.
3. Ensure all compliance and tax reporting requirements are met in both jurisdictions.

Deputies Should Engage with the Court of Protection Before Major Relocations

This case reinforces the importance of proactive planning. The deputy applied to the CoP for specific authorities after the move had taken place, which led to legal disputes about jurisdiction.

To avoid complications, deputies should:

• Apply for CoP guidance in advance if P’s move abroad is being considered.
• Request specific orders confirming whether the deputyship should continue or be modified.
• Ensure proper safeguards are in place for asset management in both jurisdictions.

The CoP is more likely to support continuity if deputies demonstrate a well-thought-out plan that protects P’s best interests while complying with international laws.

Ongoing Oversight is Essential – Even if P is No Longer in the UK

Although KS now lives in India, her estate remains in England, and the deputy remains accountable to the CoP. This means deputies managing cross-border cases should:

1. Maintain regular financial reporting to the CoP.
2. Ensure investments remain properly managed within UK financial regulations.
3. Communicate with P and their family to ensure ongoing suitability of financial arrangements.

Conclusion

The ruling in Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation Ltd v KS provides much-needed clarity for deputies handling cases where P relocates abroad.

1. The Court of Protection does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because P becomes habitually resident elsewhere.
2. A deputyship remains valid if P’s assets are still in England—but the deputy must comply with the legal framework of the new country.
3. Deputies should seek early legal advice, engage with the CoP before major relocations, and ensure they meet both UK and international compliance requirements.

For deputies managing complex cross-border estate administration, this case highlights the importance of proactive planning, legal foresight, and maintaining clear oversight of P’s financial affairs—wherever they may live.