Re KC: LCR v SC (2020) EWCOP 62: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "Summary=''(.*)''" to "Summary=$1") |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Parties=LCR, SC, AEC, CP, KC | |Parties=LCR, SC, AEC, CP, KC | ||
|Sentence=Whether to register LPAs | |Sentence=Whether to register LPAs | ||
|Summary= | |Summary=(1) The three-stage test in [[Re J (2010) MHLO 167 (COP)]] for revocation of an LPA was applied to LPA registration in this case: the LPAs were not registered as the acrimonious relationship among the donees would prevent them from acting in KC's best interests. (2) a panel deputy for property and affairs was appointed, but no personal welfare deputy. | ||
|Subject=Deputyship cases,LPA cases - revocation | |Subject=Deputyship cases,LPA cases - revocation | ||
|News=Yes | |News=Yes | ||
|RSS pubdate=2020/12/12 10:48:32 AM | |RSS pubdate=2020/12/12 10:48:32 AM | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:55, 8 October 2021
Whether to register LPAs (1) The three-stage test in Re J (2010) MHLO 167 (COP) for revocation of an LPA was applied to LPA registration in this case: the LPAs were not registered as the acrimonious relationship among the donees would prevent them from acting in KC's best interests. (2) a panel deputy for property and affairs was appointed, but no personal welfare deputy.
Essex search
This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:Full judgment: BAILII
Subject(s):
- Deputyship cases🔍 Older deputyship cases can still be found in Category:Other capacity cases
- LPA cases - revocation🔍
Date: 29/9/20🔍
Court: Court of Protection🔍
Judge(s):
- Sarah Richardson🔍
Parties:
Citation number(s):
What links here:Published: 12/12/20 10:59
Cached: 2025-06-23 20:02:31
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: