View source for Re Phillips (2012) MHLO 60 (LPA)

''The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C. She did not name any persons to be notified, and so there were two certificate providers. The Public Guardian refused to register on the ground that one certificate provider, X, was a member of the family of A. He was the unmarried partner of A but did not live at the same address. In his Part B certificate X said: "I am the partner of A and have known the donor for 3 years." The attorney applied to court for a direction to register and the Public Guardian was joined as respondent. The court decided that X was to be treated as a member of the family of A, and so the instrument could not be registered. The judge said: "In my judgment, anyone who describes himself in this context as the attorney's partner is courting trouble and automatically disqualifies himself from being a person who can give an LPA certificate. This applies regardless of whether he describes himself as the attorney's partner intentionally or inadvertently, whether they live at the same address or at separate locations, whether the relationship is intimate or platonic, and whether the statement is true or false." Although it was unnecessary to the decision, the judge added that, even if X were not to be treated as a family member, he was not independent of the attorney, as required by the prescribed LPA form.'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

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

'''Case title:''' Re Phillips (an order of the Senior Judge made on 16 May 2012)

'''Listed under heading:''' Eligibility of Certificate Provider

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

{{lpa-summary-link}}

[[:File:Re Phillips (2012) MHLO 60 (LPA).pdf|Transcript]]


[[Category:LPA cases - formalities]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]
[[Category:Judgment available on MHLO]]