Re Dadd (2010) COP 17/10/10

The donor made an LPA using the "new" form presribed in 2009. She appointed two attorneys but provided no date of birth for either. The Public Guardian was willing to register in favour of one attorney because her title was given as "Mrs", so that it could reasonably be inferred that she was at least 18. It was overlooked that the other attorney was described in the instrument as the donor's husband. On the attorney's application the court directed registration. As it could be inferred from the instrument that both attorneys were at least 18, the instrument differed from the prescribed form in an immaterial respect within paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]


Summary from OPG website.

Title: Re Dadd (an order of District Judge Hilder made on 17 November 2010)

Heading: Attorney's date of birth missing

External link

No Bailii link (no transcript)

Summary on OPG website