View source for Re Hamilton (2011) COP 25/10/11

''The donor appointed one primary attorney and one replacement attorney. On page 5 of the LPA the donor inappropriately ticked the box indicating that the attorneys were appointed to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for other decisions, and continued: "My No 1 Attorney will make all decisions re my everyday expenses and decisions [and] will make joint decisions with the Replacement Attorney in reference to any large decisions re the selling of investments, property and the eventual need of a nursing home etc." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that, having appointed the attorneys to act successively, the donor could not authorise them to make any decisions concurrently, whether jointly or jointly and severally.'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

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

'''Title:''' Re Hamilton (an order of the Senior Judge made on 25 October 2011)

'''Heading:''' Severance of invalid restrictions as to when a replacement attorney may act

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

{{lpa-summary-link}}


[[Category:LPA cases - severance of restrictions]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]