Category

EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed

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 Freeman (2010) COP 7/9/10The donor signed Part B of the EPA instrument on 14 April 2006, but the attorney did not sign Part C until 3 October 2008. The Public Guardian refused to register on the ground that an instrument could not be a valid EPA unless the attorney had signed before 1 October 2007. Section 66(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides that an EPA cannot be "created" after commencement. On the attorney's application the court declared that the instrument was not a valid EPA. (The attorney applied for a reconsideration but the Judge confirmed his earlier decision by an order made at a hearing on 28 February 2011.) (Note: The Public Guardian will register an EPA appointing joint and several attorneys if at least one attorney signed before 1 October 2007 even though other(s) did not, in which case registration will be limited to the attorney(s) who signed before that date.) [OPG summary - EPA case.] 2010‑12‑01 21:52:30 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, No transcript


Re Devine (2010) COP 13/10/10The attorney's signature in Part C was witnessed but the witness did not sign his name. On the application of the attorney the court declared that the instrument was defective in a material respect and did not take effect as an EPA. [OPG summary - EPA case.] 2010‑10‑25 21:49:42 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, No transcript


Re Lodge (2010) COP 6/8/10Unfortunately by mistake the donor signed Part C and the attorney signed Part B of the EPA instrument. On the attorney's application the Court held that the donor's failure to execute the instrument correctly was a material defect and it was not a valid EPA. The attorney applied for a reconsideration of this order. By an order of the Senior Judge made on 14/3/11 the previous order was affirmed. [OPG summary - EPA case - transcript available.] 2010‑08‑16 22:12:57 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, Transcript


Re Parker (2008) COP 22/12/08This application concerned an EPA which had already been registered in 2007. The attorneys had signed the EPA on 25 December 1993 and the donor had signed later, on 13 January 1994. The court held that the EPA was valid, applying the unreported decision of Knox J in Re R dated 23 February 1988. (OPG summary.) 2009‑11‑29 22:07:18 2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, No transcript


Re Wealleans (2008) COP 8/5/08The witness had not stated her address in the instrument, as required by Regulation 3(1) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Prescribed Form) Regulations 1990. On the application of the attorney the court declared pursuant to MCA Schedule 4 paragraph 2(4) that the EPA was “procedurally valid”. [Paragraph 2(4) provides that, if an instrument differs in an immaterial respect in form or mode of expression from the prescribed form it is to be treated as sufficient in point of form and expression]. [OPG summary - EPA case.] 2009‑11‑29 22:05:40 2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, No transcript


Re Harries (2009) COP 22/6/09 11613871The witnesses to an EPA had handwritten their names but not separately signed the form, so the OPG had refused to register the EPA. The court held that the difference between a handwritten name (as opposed to a typed one) and a signature is immaterial, and ordered that the EPA be registered. 2009‑09‑27 15:48:53 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, Transcript