Re Bullock (2009) COP 15/12/09
Revision as of 22:20, 30 September 2011 by Jonathan
The certificate providers did not tick the box to confirm that they had discussed the LPA with the donor and that the attorney was not present. The donor was in hospital and the certificate providers had discussed the LPA with the donor at his bedside, the attorney being present throughout. The Public Guardian refused registration on the ground that the instrument was not in prescribed form. The court, in the exercise of its discretion, declared under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 that the instrument, which was not in the prescribed form, should be treated as if it were. Registration was directed accordingly. [OPG summary.]
The summary above was taken from the OPG website. Title: Re Bullock (an order made by the Senior Judge on 15 December 2009). Heading: Where attorney present when certificate provider interviews the donor.
No Bailii link - no written judgment