Here's a real WIN for a chap named Michael Clarke who insists that statute law has no effect and his poor mother's case should be decided under 'common law'.
The sorry saga starts here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/2256.html though the events began back in 1995 when Mrs Clarke had a road accident and suffered brain injuries, and was awarded some £775,000 damages. Her three children couldn't agree on who should look after this money on their mother's behalf, so an independent deputy from Pannone was appointed.
13. On 16 November 2011, the present application was issued and directions were given by the court. Michael Clarke immediately objected to the lawfulness of the proceedings on the basis that they have no legal authority. It is his fixed view that "statute law" has no effect and that the matter must be decided under "common law".
14. Mrs Clarke's other children have filed evidence opposing the discharge of the deputyship on the basis that if she were not protected, Michael Clarke would spend her money on himself. In response, Michael Clarke has filed evidence disputing this and making allegations against his siblings and the Deputy.
15. In January 2012, Michael Clarke's activities (which included picketing Pannone's offices with Mrs Clarke in a wheelchair) resulted in Mrs Justice Sharp making an injunction restraining him from further harrassment of the Deputy or his firm.
The £775,000 is almost all gone now apart from a property in Blackpool worth around £200,000. But Mrs Clarke doesn't live there, she lives with Michael and his partner in Spain. MC and partner want to move to Thailand with Mrs C, but that hasn't happened. In the meantime, her fund has run out and she does not have enough to live on, and one way of raising some capital would be to sell the house which is currently rented out room by room. MC opposes the sale.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/2714.html The court makes an order that the Blackpool property cannot be sold, though does not comment on the legality of the 'will' presented to the court, or on MC's claim that he is entitled to the ownership of the Blackpool property.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/2947.html Normally, Court of Protection decisions are kept anonymised but MC has apparently placed his disagreements with his siblings, the court, the Judges and many other people in the public domain.
5. [...] My overall conclusions in relation to Mrs Clarke's capacity did not favour any party. While a sale of the Blackpool property has not been ordered at this time, the manner in which Mr Michael Clarke has conducted the proceedings more than wipes out any weight that might be attached to that factor. I identify his use of his mother's case as a vehicle for his political views, his aggressive disrespect towards anyone with whom he disagrees, and his complete lack of regard for his mother and family's right to privacy.
Things rumble on out of the public eye for the best part of three years, and then MC has a volte-face regarding the Blackpool property:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/11.html
2. A written application has now been made by Mr Michael Clarke on 3 September 2015 to vary the order of 9 October 2012 so as to allow the sale of Mrs Clarke’s Blackpool property. There has also been a request by Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke for access to the property in order to inspect and maintain it, but no application has been issued, despite time being allowed. The application and request are both opposed.
3. I gave directions in November for the filing of concise statements. Before that, Mr Michael Clarke had lodged over 200 pages of almost entirely irrelevant documents, illustrating his entrenched conspiracy theories. [...]
4. Since 2012, there have been a number of developments. Mr Clarke, who had said he wanted to live in England, has instead kept his mother in Spain, also taking her to Thailand between September 2015 and February 2016, before returning her to Spain. All this has been against the wishes of Mrs Clarke’s other children.
5. In January 2013, Mr Michael Clarke was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for contempt of court in respect of orders made in 2012 in civil proceedings. He has not returned to the United Kingdom to serve his sentence or purge his contempt.
6. In March 2015, a limited civil restraint order was made to prevent Mr Michael Clarke making any further applications in the civil proceedings.
[...]
9. Unfortunately, Mr Michael Clarke’s actions and his incoherent and abusive manner make it impossible to assess what is best for Mrs Clarke. All that can be said is that it is unlikely to be in her best interests to be kept out of her native country. If the property was sold, the proceeds would be spent in whatever way Mr Michael Clarke chose, unless they were tied up in some way. Given that he has shown himself to be incapable of cooperating at any level, I can find no basis for granting his application.
Success for Michael Clarke!!!! His poor brain-injured mother, who may lack capacity (MC refuses to have her assessed for capacity) has no money and her health is rapidly deteriorating but cannot come back to the UK unless he brings her back, he has been sentenced to three months in jail so will probably not be keen to return to the UK, he has a civil restraint order against him, and now he cannot access the last bit of his mother's capital.
