Alex Ruck Keene, 'Foreign powers of attorney - an unfortunate judicial wrong turn' (Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 26/3/18): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "This article states that the two litigants in person, in seeking recognition and enforcement of a Canadian "Continuing Power of Attorney for Property" as a protective measure...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This article states that the two litigants in person, in seeking recognition and enforcement of a Canadian "Continuing Power of Attorney for Property" as a protective measure (under Part 4 Schedule 3 MCA 2005), had led the judge astray, as the relevant question was whether (under Part 3) the Canadian power was valid according to Ontario law, assuming JMK had been habitually resident there at the point of granting the power. A application can be made under rule 23.6 [[Court of Protection Rules 2017]] in any case where there is doubt as to the basis upon which the attorney under a foreign power is operating. | {{Resource | ||
|Type=Web page | |||
|Title=Foreign powers of attorney - an unfortunate judicial wrong turn | |||
|Author=Ruck Keene, Alex | |||
|Sentence=Commentary on protective measure case | |||
|Abstract=This article states that the two litigants in person, in seeking recognition and enforcement of a Canadian "Continuing Power of Attorney for Property" as a protective measure (under Part 4 Schedule 3 MCA 2005), had led the judge astray, as the relevant question was whether (under Part 3) the Canadian power was valid according to Ontario law, assuming JMK had been habitually resident there at the point of granting the power. A application can be made under rule 23.6 [[Court of Protection Rules 2017]] in any case where there is doubt as to the basis upon which the attorney under a foreign power is operating. | |||
|Date=2018/03/26 | |||
|URL=http://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/foreign-powers-of-attorney-an-unfortunate-judicial-wrong-turn/ | |||
|Saved=Yes | |||
|News=No | |||
|RSS pubdate=2019/3/23 11:35:59 AM | |||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 11:35, 23 March 2019
Commentary on protective measure case This article states that the two litigants in person, in seeking recognition and enforcement of a Canadian "Continuing Power of Attorney for Property" as a protective measure (under Part 4 Schedule 3 MCA 2005), had led the judge astray, as the relevant question was whether (under Part 3) the Canadian power was valid according to Ontario law, assuming JMK had been habitually resident there at the point of granting the power. A application can be made under rule 23.6 Court of Protection Rules 2017 in any case where there is doubt as to the basis upon which the attorney under a foreign power is operating.