View source for Re Freeman (2011) COP 17/8/11

''The donor appointed A and B as attorneys to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. He specified that they were to act as follows: "Major capital expenses jointly. Day to day expenses A." In his application the Public Guardian submitted that the donor had not specified any decisions to be made jointly and severally and so the words "Day to day expenses A" should be severed, with the effect that decisions not specified to be taken jointly should by implication be taken jointly and severally. The court was also asked to sever the word "Major" on the ground of uncertainty. The court accordingly severed these words so that the attorneys were appointed to act jointly for "capital expenses" and (by implication) jointly and severally for everything else. '' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

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

'''Title:''' Re Freeman (an order of the Senior Judge made on 17 August 2011) 

'''Heading:''' Severence of restrictions incompatible with an appointment to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others

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

{{lpa-summary-link}}

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

[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]