Sunil Kambli v Public Guardian  EWCOP 53
Replacement of deputy The third panel deputy in this case sought discharge of his appointment on the same basis as the first two: a breakdown in relations with family members, particularly the father of MBR. Initially his request was refused but on reconsideration it was granted. It was not in MBR's best interests for the deputyship to continue: aspects of managing his financial affairs which should be straightforward would be drawn out and acrimonious, costs would be higher than necessary, and it would cause household stress (other considerations were the deputy's withdrawal of consent and the father's inappropriate behaviour). Rather than appoint a fourth panel deputy, two relatives were appointed despite the lack of experience and indemnity insurance: they were appointed jointly, for one accounting period initially, with £400,000 security, authority to sell property or withdraw from investments excluded, and a requirement to apply to court about any unresolved family dispute.