Sheila Bartram v Stephen John Bartram

Under the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017, the High Court may appoint a guardian over a missing person’s property and financial affairs where the statutory absence and missing-person conditions are met and guardianship is in that person’s best interests.

The court must consider the missing person’s expressed wishes and feelings, beliefs and values, and other factors they would be likely to consider. The guardian’s powers may be broad where necessary to regularise a limited estate, but the court may impose a shorter term than the statutory maximum and may dispense with security after considering the proposed guardian’s circumstances and expenditure.

The claimant, the mother of Stephen Bartram, applied under section 2 of the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 for appointment as guardian over his property and financial affairs. Mr Bartram, who had paranoid schizophrenia and received state benefits, had disappeared after travelling from England through several European countries. Despite extensive police, Interpol and family enquiries, his whereabouts had remained unknown for more than a year.

The claimant sought authority to manage debts, utilities, banking arrangements and a mortgaged property. The issues were whether Mr Bartram was a missing person, whether the statutory conditions were satisfied, whether guardianship was in his best interests, and what powers, duration and safeguards were appropriate.

1. Guardianship order. The court was satisfied that the defendant was a missing person within section 1 of the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017. He was absent from his usual residence and day-to-day activities, and his whereabouts were not known. The requirement that he had been missing throughout the 90-day period ending with the application was also met.
2. Best interests. In deciding whether to make the order, the court considered the defendant’s relevant wishes and feelings, his likely beliefs and values, and other factors he would likely have considered, as required by section 18. The serious condition of his finances, mounting debts and risk of repossession meant that appointment of a guardian was in his best interests.
3. Appointment and powers. The claimant had sufficient interest and was an appropriate person to act as guardian. Given the limited estate and the claims upon it, she was granted the widest range of powers over the defendant’s property and financial affairs, including powers concerning his home, accounts, liabilities, benefits, investments and legal proceedings. She was required to act in what she reasonably believed to be his best interests.
4. Duration and safeguards. Although the claimant sought the maximum four-year term, the order was limited to two years and could be extended under section 12. The court did not require security under section 6(3), having regard to the claimant’s modest means and expenditure already incurred. The guardian was required to keep records and report to the Office of the Public Guardian when required.
5. The claimant was appointed guardian immediately. She could recover specified expenses and sums advanced for the defendant, subject to the limits in the order, and was required to pay the assessed cost of the police material from the defendant’s funds together with the court fees.