Expert Witness Journal Issue 67 June/July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 76
important that the person is able to claim all of the
state bene昀椀ts and care funding that they may be
entitled to, both now and in the future, and that the
person has a suitable structure in place to manage
their funds.
been compensated for care, on the basis that
the double-recovery principle applies only to
damages in tort and assessment of the same,
and has no relevance to statutory duties under
the Care Act.
Funds held in the trust are disregarded when
assessing eligibility for some means tested state
bene昀椀ts and services (such as residential care). As
a result, a claimant can continue to receive these
bene昀椀ts and/or services in the future. A personal
injury trust helps to de昀椀ne and ‘ring fence’ the funds
that have arisen from a personal injury, keeping
them separate from other assets.
Conclusion
The ruling in CGT v West Sussex County Council is
not necessarily a change in the position regarding
personal injury trusts and statutory funding but
it does provide clarity and certainty – which is
welcome.
It reinforces the protective purpose of PI trusts,
rea昀케rms statutory obligations under the Care
Act 2014, and brings much-needed clarity to an
area fraught with tension between compensation
principles and public funding duties. Above all, it
ensures that vulnerable individuals like CGT who
have compensation designed to meet their long term
needs in all respects do not end up being forced to
use it on care provision that they would otherwise
be entitled to receive from statutory services, and
that potentially exceeds the value of any damages
recovered for care.
However, despite previous case law and guidance on
this issue, from time to time local authorities who
are aware of the existence of a personal injury trust
do seek to argue that the funds should be considered
when carrying out means testing.
Background to the case
CGT, a severely disabled adult with lifelong care
needs resulting from a catastrophic brain injury
sustained in infancy, received a Criminal Injuries
Compensation Authority (CICA) award exceeding
£3.5 million in 2012. These funds were placed in a
discretionary personal injury trust and were being
managed with a view to trying to ensure the funds
would last to meet CGT’s long term needs.
CGT’s father later sought for his local authority
(West Sussex County Council – WSCC) to provide
care to CGT. The council resisted on the basis
that the damages in the trust should fund all care,
and later demanded repayment of previous care
provided (a sum of over £200,000).
Mansoor Foroughi
Consultant Neurosurgeon
MB, ChB, FRCS (Lon.), MSc, FRCS (SN) FEBNS,
EANS Braakman Diploma
CGT’s father brought a judicial review, arguing
that the council’s refusal was unlawful because PI
trust capital should be fully disregarded in 昀椀nancial
assessments and that to both pay for care and
reimburse WSCC would threaten the ability of the
funds in the trust to meet CGT’s long term needs.
Mr Mansoor Foroughi is a Consultant Neurosurgeon and experienced
Medico-Legal expert with over 28 years’ experience and more than 4,000
neurosurgical procedures performed. He is a recognised specialist in
cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) disorders, including hydrocephalus, Chiari malformation,
syringomyelia, arachnoid and colloid cysts, with extensive expertise in brain and
spinal tumour surgery, neurovascular conditions, traumatic brain injury and
degenerative disease of the spine.
Clinical and Medico-Legal interests include head injury and trauma
(post-concussion syndrome, haematoma, traumatic brain injury), spinal disorders
(cauda equina syndrome, cord compression, disc surgery, spinal injury), CSF
disorders (hydrocephalus, Chiari malformation, syringomyelia, arachnoid cysts,
colloid cysts, pineal lesions), brain tumours and neuro-oncology (including
meningiomas), and vascular neurosurgery (brain haemorrhage and subarachnoid
haemorrhage, aneurysms, AVM & dAV Fistula). His Medico-Legal practice
includes active work since 2015, producing approximately 60–80 reports per
year for both Claimant and Defendant, with instructions accepted across
neurosurgical injury, trauma, brain and spinal disorders, and surgical
complications.
The court’s decision
The High Court agreed unequivocally with CGT’s
father, ruling that:
1.
PI trust funds must be completely disregarded
in Care Act assessments – if funds originate
from an award in an injury claim and are held
in a qualifying trust, the local authority must
ignore them in full. WSCC could not lawfully
treat the trust as capital available for care costs;
2.
the council’s refusal to fund care and its
demand for reimbursement were unlawful;
3.
the ‘double recovery’ doctrine has no place in
Care Act assessments – the court rejected the
council’s argument that public funding would
lead to ‘double recovery’ since CGT had already
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Having trained in leading centres in the UK, Finland and Canada, Mr Foroughi has
held Senior Consultant posts at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham and in
Brighton, Sussex and now works in full-time private practice in brain and spine
surgery. He is widely published, contributes to neurosurgical textbooks, is an
award-winning innovator and has a particular interest in the role of artificial
intelligence in medicine.
Telephone: 07375 071968
Email: info@medical-eagle.co.uk
Website: https://medical-eagle.co.uk/
74
JUNE 2026
