The court ruled that the P's LPAs were invalid as one of the attorneys had witnessed the donor's signature. The registration was cancelled.
Application by P's son for retrospective approval of gifts of money paid from P's accounts to or for the benefit of the Applicant. Approval was given for a portion of the sum paid.
The Applicant, who holds an EPA and LPA for heath and welfare, withdrew funds totalling over £88,000 from the bank accounts. He was applying for retrospective approval for these withdrawals, while his estranged brother was against the approval being given.
The Court approved a total of just over £72,000.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Application for an order to recognise a Canadian Power of Attorney as "a protective measure" for the purposes of Schedule 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The application was refused.
Application for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 granting retrospective ratification of a gift of £324,000 from the Patient, being a potentially exempt transfer for the purposes of inheritance tax (IHT). The application was refused.
Application for the revocation of both LPAs after the attorneys used the Patient's money to buy a property. The LPA PA was revoked, the LPA HW was not.
Case in which the court had to decide who was reponsible for costs incurred as a result of the successful application by the PG to have the attorneys' LPA for property and financial affairs revoked. The attorneys were ordered to share their own costs.
This case concerns an application by the Public Guardian (‘PG’) to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’) for property and affairs.
This is an appeal against the order of DJ Mort whereby he granted an application by the Patient (‘P’) to revoke a registered Enduring Power of Attorney (‘EPA’). The attorneys, his children appealed against the order.
Application by the Public Guardian for the revocation of a LPA for property and affairs registered on 23 September 2008 and for a LPA for personal welfare registered on 26th of January 2009. This was on the basis that the sole attorney, P’s youngest son Ray, has behaved in a manner that is incompatible with P’s welfare in that he had been neglectful of his mother and similarly there was financial neglect in relation to the LPA for property and affairs.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Also of interest - just published
Get the latest cases & news delivered to your inbox with our free email updates.