View source for Re Clarke (2009) COP 18/11/09

''The donor appointed three attorneys, A (his wife), B, and C, to be his attorneys. They were appointed to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others.  He then stated that the attorneys were to act together for transactions not exceeding £5,000 "but together in respect of all other decisions subject to my wife A's opinion prevailing in the event that my attorneys are not unanimous in any decision involving property or expenditure exceeding £5,000". On the application of the Public Guardian, the words "subject to my wife A's opinion" onwards were severed on the ground that they purported to facilitate one of the three attorneys being able to act independently in relation to matters that had been specified as subject to the joint decision of the attorneys.'' [OPG summary.]

==Notes==
Listed under "Severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment" as "Re Clarke (an order of the Senior Judge made on 18 November 2009)". No transcript.

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

[http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/forms/cop-lpa-orders.htm Summary on OPG website]


[[Category:LPA cases - severance of restrictions]]

[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2009 cases]]