Re Howarth (2008) COP 28/7/08: Difference between revisions
(Created page with '''The donor had named the replacement attorney as the only person to be notified of an application to register. MCA Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3) provides that a person who is “app…') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
[http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/forms/cop-lpa-orders.htm Summary on OPG website] | [http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/forms/cop-lpa-orders.htm Summary on OPG website] | ||
[[Category:LPA cases]] | [[Category:LPA cases]] | ||
[[Category:Brief summary]] | [[Category:Brief summary]] | ||
[[Category:No transcript]] | [[Category:No transcript]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:2008 cases]] | ||
Revision as of 22:01, 29 November 2009
The donor had named the replacement attorney as the only person to be notified of an application to register. MCA Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3) provides that a person who is “appointed as donee under the instrument” may not be a named person. If there was no effective named person, the instrument could only be valid if it contained two Part B certificates, but it contained only one. On the application of the Public Guardian the court directed the severance of the appointment of the replacement attorney on the ground that a replacement attorney was a person “appointed as donee under the instrument” who could not, therefore, be a named person. As the appointment of the replacement attorney was severed, the named person was not an attorney and so the instrument could be registered. (OPG summary.)
Note
The summary above is taken from the OPG website. It is listed under the heading "Replacement attorney as a named person" as "Re Howarth (an order of the Senior Judge made on 29 July 2008)".
External link
Not on Bailii - there was no written judgment