View source for Re Baker (2011) COP 4/2/11

''In Part A of the instrument the donor put his middle name in the box for "Last Name" and omitted his surname completely. As his middle name could have passed for a surname, this error was not noticed by anybody and the instrument was registered. The attorney applied for a declaration that the LPA was to be treated as valid under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005, under which the court may declare that an instrument is to be treated as if it had been made in the prescribed form even though it differs in a material respect from the prescribed form. The court exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) because, although the error was material, it was satisfied that the instrument was intended to be an LPA. The Public Guardian was directed to amend the register and attach a note to the instrument to this effect. (Note: for a similar case concerning an EPA, see [[Re Orriss (2010) COP 20/10/10]], under the "Rectification" heading.)'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

==Note==
Summary from OPG website.

'''Title:''' Re Baker (an order of the Senior Judge made on 4 February 2011)

'''Heading:''' Donor's surname missing

==External link==
{{#bailii:no tran}}

[http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/forms/cop-lpa-orders.htm Summary on OPG website]

[[Category:LPA cases - formalities]]

[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]