View source for Re Gee (2011) COP 22/8/11

''The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following guidance: "Although I authorise my Attorneys to make gifts of money to either grandchild in cases of extreme need (for which I rely on my Attorneys' discretion) no benefit directly or indirectly should go to my daughter. If my house has to be sold I authorise my Attorneys to distribute any furniture, household and personal effects to X, Y and my grandchildren as if I had died." In making the application the Public Guardian referred the court to the view expressed by the Law Commission in its report on Mental Capacity (Law Com. No. 231) to the effect that an LPA attorney could provide for the needs of others as part of his duty to act in the donor's best interests, even in the absence of an express provision such as is conferred on EPA attorneys. The Public Guardian asked the court to consider whether the view of the Law Commission could be relied on in cases where the donor contemplated that the attorneys could provide for the needs of others in circumstances outside the statutory gifting power. However, the court severed the guidance on the ground that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. '' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

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

'''Title:''' Re Gee (an order of the Senior Judge made on 22 August 2011) 

'''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:2011 cases]]