View source for Re Hurren (2011) COP 28/9/11

''The Public Guardian refused to register the instrument as an LPA because the Part B certificate had been signed before the donor signed Part A, in contravention of Regulation 9 of the Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney and Public Guardian Regulations 2007. (The donor had subsequently lost capacity.) On the attorney's application, the court declared in the exercise of its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 that the instrument was to be treated as if it were in the prescribed form and directed registration. The Public Guardian applied to set aside the order on the ground that paragraph 3(2) did not apply in the case of defective execution. The court set aside the order, and confirmed that the discretion given to the court under paragraph 3(2) applies only to an instrument which is not in the prescribed form and does not apply to any prescribed requirements in connection with its execution.'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

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

'''Title:''' Re Hurren (an order of the Senior Judge made on 28 September 2011) 

'''Heading:''' Whether the instrument has been correctly executed

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

{{lpa-summary-link}}

[[Category:LPA cases - formalities]]

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