View source for Re Buckley (2013) MHLO 144 (LPA)

''The donor made an LPA for property and financial affairs and included the following provision: "Assets should be used firstly to ensure the well being and comfort of [my wife] and secondly to meet any urgent need of the families of the Attorneys and thereafter managed until distributed in accordance with the terms of my will." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed. Although the attorneys would have power to maintain the donor's wife (see Re Bloom above), this should not be the priority of the LPA because section 1(5) of the MCA provides that "An act done, or decision made, under this Act for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests." The attorneys had no authority to meet the needs of their families, as the donor was not under any legal obligation to maintain them. Any maintenance of the families would be a gift which would potentially fall outside section 12 of the MCA 2005.'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

==Note==
Summary from OPG section of Justice website.

'''Case title:''' Re Buckley (an order of the Senior Judge made on 22 February 2013)

'''Listed under heading:''' Severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts

==External link==
{{#bailii:no tran}}

{{lpa-summary-link}}


[[Category:LPA cases - severance of restrictions]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2013 cases]]