GWS & Ors v St Thomas Becket Catholic Primary School

Approval of a bare trust to manage interim damages for a child is case-specific. The court must determine whether the arrangement is in the child’s best interests, having regard to available alternatives, likely use of the funds, costs, investment benefits and practical administration.

Payment into the Court Funds Office may be preferable where it can manage the funds effectively and release payments without material difficulty. Solicitors remain responsible for advising on interim payments, expenditure and recoverability. Court approval of payments or a trust does not bind the judge assessing final damages. A trust should not be treated as routine merely because it may offer investment or benefits-protection advantages.

The First Claimant, a child, sustained extensive burns in an accident at a school carol concert. Liability was admitted, and substantial interim payments had been made. His solicitors sought approval for a bare trust, with the litigation friend and a professional trust corporation as trustees, to administer the remaining interim funds while assessment of damages was deferred because of uncertainty about his future psychological condition.

The Defendant opposed the trust option. The court considered whether the funds should instead be paid into the Court Funds Office, including the Special Account, and addressed the alleged delays, investment opportunities, administrative costs, possible future benefits, and recoverability of trust expenses.

1. Application rejected. The proposed bare trust was not approved. Payment into the Court Funds Office, particularly the Special Account, was in the child’s best interests.
2. CPR rules 21.10 and 21.11 permit the court to approve interim payments and to direct how money recovered for a child is dealt with. The court is not confined to payment into court and may approve a trust, but the choice remains dependent on the individual circumstances.
3. The asserted administrative difficulties with the Court Funds Office were unsupported. Requests for payment might take some weeks, but regular payments could be arranged and expedited requests made to the assigned Master. Routine applications would ordinarily be dealt with on the papers, supported by case-manager reports, medical evidence and explanations of expenditure.
4. The trust’s possible advantages, including wider investment opportunities and possible benefits protection after majority, did not justify its immediate creation. The likely short-term demands on the fund reduced the significance of investment flexibility. The prospect that a trust might be useful at age 18 was speculative and concerned a separate question.
5. The court rejected the proposed comparison of costs. A trust would add the professional trustee’s charges to continuing work by the claimant’s solicitors. Solicitors would retain responsibility for advising on interim payments and the recoverability of expenditure. Some payment administration might be administrative work comprehended within ordinary charging rates.
6. The court was also concerned that the recoverability of trust costs was uncertain. Any approval would not bind the judge assessing damages, who could disregard it in law. A trust might be appropriate where property was acquired or adapted to protect the child’s interest, but that was distinct from managing interim funds.