Re Newman [2012] MHLO 73 (EPA)

The donor made an EPA in which, amongst other defects, he failed to select either of the following alternatives: "with general authority to act on my behalf" or "with authority to do the following on my behalf". The court confirmed that this failure did not invalidate the EPA, because it was an immaterial difference from the prescribed form within paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 4 of the MCA. [OPG summary - EPA case.]

Note

Summary from OPG section of Justice website.

Case title: Re Newman (an order of the Senior Judge made on 30 July 2012)

Listed under heading: Immaterial differences from the prescribed form

External link

No Bailii link (neutral citation is unknown or not applicable)

Summary on OPG section of Justice website†.This is a link to an archived version of the web page (archived on 6/10/14).

Transcript from MOJ website