Re Nazran (2008) 27/6/08: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "Category:LPA cases - all" to "") |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[Category:LPA cases - formalities]] | [[Category:LPA cases - formalities]] | ||
[[Category:Brief summary]] | [[Category:Brief summary]] | ||
[[Category:No transcript]] | [[Category:No transcript]] | ||
[[Category:2008 cases]] | [[Category:2008 cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 07:58, 2 May 2021
The certificate provider had not completed the first two boxes in Part B of the instrument to confirm that he was acting independently of the donor, was not ineligible to provide a certificate, and was aged 18 or over. The attorneys applied to court for a declaration that the instrument was a valid LPA or, alternatively, that the instrument was to be treated as valid under MCA Schedule 1 paragraph 3(2). [Paragraph 3(2) provides that the court may declare that an instrument which is not in the prescribed form may be treated as if it were, if it is satisfied that the persons executing the instrument intended it to create a lasting power of attorney]. The court, in the exercise of its discretion under Schedule 1 paragraph 3(2), declared that the instrument was to be treated as if it were an LPA and registered accordingly. The Public Guardian does not have this discretion. (OPG summary.)
Note
The summary above is taken from the OPG website. It is listed under the heading "Whether the instrument is in prescribed form - unticked boxes " as "Re Nazran (an order of the Senior Judge made on 27 June 2008)".
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 This is a link to an archived version of the web page (archived on 6/10/14).