EPA cases - rectification
The new database structure introduced in 2019 is more useful than this Category page: see Special:Drilldown/Cases.The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
|Case and summary||Date added||Categories|
|Re Orriss (2010) COP 20/10/10 — By mistake the donor's surname was omitted from the instrument, which included only his first and second names. The EPA was registered without the mistake being discovered. On the application of the attorney the court directed the Public Guardian to attach a note to the EPA stating that the donor's surname had been omitted in error from Part B. [OPG summary - EPA case.]||2010‑11‑28 20:45:34||2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - rectification, No transcript
|Re Smith (2009) COP 7/12/09 — In Part C of the EPA the attorney had deleted the words "I also understand my limited power to use the donor's property to benefit persons other than the donor". On the attorney's application, the court was satisfied that the deletion was made in error, and directed that the instrument should be read as if the wording had not been deleted. [OPG summary - EPA case.]||2010‑01‑12 19:02:19||2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - rectification, No transcript
|Re Portues (2009) COP 6/1/09 — In Part B of the instrument the donor appointed attorneys to act jointly and severally and struck out the words “with general authority to act”, leaving in place the words “with authority to do the following”. She did not include any instructions under those words to indicate the scope of the attorneys’ powers. On the application of the attorney for rectification of the instrument, the court was satisfied that it was the donor’s intention to confer general authority on the attorneys and that the deletion of those words was a clerical error. The court declared that the EPA was to be read and construed as if the donor granted general authority to the attorneys and directed the Public Guardian to reconsider the registration of the EPA in the light of the declaration. [OPG summary - EPA case.]||2009‑11‑29 23:57:56||2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - rectification, No transcript
|Re Sawyer (2009) COP 31/3/09 — In Part B of the EPA the donor appointed four attorneys, but omitted to strike out either option "jointly" or "jointly and severally" in relation to how they should act. On the application of the attorneys, the court was satisfied that the donor had intended to appoint them to act jointly and severally, and directed that the EPA should be construed as if they had been appointed jointly and severally and the alternative option "jointly" had been deleted. The Public Guardian was directed to attach a note to that effect to the registered EPA. [OPG summary - EPA case.]||2009‑11‑29 22:51:33||2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - rectification, No transcript