Re Taylor (2012) MHLO 24 (EPA): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "''(1) In Re Dunningham: The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "and the said B shall have no au...") |
m (Text replacement - "Not on Bailii - no transcript" to "{{#bailii:no tran}}") |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
{{#bailii:no tran}} | |||
{{epa-summary-link}} | {{epa-summary-link}} | ||
Revision as of 21:18, 26 April 2021
(1) In Re Dunningham: The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "and the said B shall have no authority to act on my behalf unless the said A has died or is incapable of acting as my Attorney". On the application of the attorneys for severance, the court severed the restriction as being inconsistent with a joint and several appointment. (2) In Re Taylor: on similar facts, the court severed the words 'jointly and severally'. [OPG summaries - EPA cases.]
Related judgments
Note
Summary from OPG section of Justice website.
Case title: Re Taylor (an order of District Judge Eldergill made on 7 December 2011)
Listed under heading: Severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment
External link
No Bailii link (no transcript)
Summary on OPG section of Justice website .This is a link to an archived version of the web page (archived on 6/10/14).