PI Trusts and securing statutory funding to meet care needs: R(CGT) v West Sussex County Council [2026] EWHC 293

The recently published case of R(CGT) v West Sussex County Council [2026] EWHC 293 (Admin) will be of interest to catastrophic injury lawyers, Deputies and Trustees acting for those who are in receipt of personal injury awards, but who also need to secure public funding to meet the needs of their clients.

In this case, CGT’s mother was appointed as his Deputy for property and financial affairs in 2011. In 2012, CGT received an award of over £3.5m from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) which was paid into a personal injury trust. A significant portion of the award, £2.6m, was made in respect of future care costs, and at the time the award was made, CGT’s mother and the Official Solicitor (who was sole trustee of the PI Trust) gave undertakings restricting their ability to seek public funding in respect of CGT. The funds were placed into a discretionary form of Personal Injury Trust, with CGT as the sole beneficiary and the Official Solicitor as the sole Trustee.

In 2013, CGT’s mother passed away, and his father was appointed as replacement Deputy in 2014. CGT’s father did not make any undertakings in respect of CGT’s access to public funds at the time of his appointment.

CGT’s father subsequently requested that the Local Authority undertake a needs assessment under the Care Act 2014. The Local Authority took the position that CGT did not qualify for Local Authority care funding, and that his care needs should be met from his PI Trust. They also sought to recoup funds already paid out to CGT’s care provider on a without prejudice basis. CGT’s father, acting as Deputy for CGT, commenced judicial review proceedings.

In it’s decision, the Court decisively affirmed the position that Schedule 2 of the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014, together with the Care and Support Statutory Guidance, provides for the disregard of capital held in a personal injury trust from the calculation of capital for the purposes of a Local Authority’s financial assessment. This was found to be the case regardless of the fact that damages had specifically been awarded in respect of future care costs. Interestingly, it also held that an undertaking cannot be transferred from one Deputy to another, as they are personal.

It is a shame, however, that the Court did not have the opportunity in this case to grapple with whether periodical payments which form part of a personal injury award, and are specifically earmarked for care, can be similarly disregarded from the Local Authority’s income assessment, in respect of which clarity would be welcomed.