View source for Re Scott (2011) COP 11/1/11

''The donor made an LPA for property and financial affairs, appointing A and B to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "In the event of there being any disagreement between A and B (as the attorneys for property and financial affairs) and C (as the attorney for health and welfare) over expenditure on my health or welfare then C's decision is to prevail." The Public Guardian applied for this restriction to be severed on the basis that Re Reading (above) showed that a donor could not require that a person who was not an attorney under the instrument should join in the making of decisions by the attorneys. The court '''dismissed''' the Public Guardian's application, considering that there was no reason in law why the donor of two seperate LPAs should not be able to provide that, in the event of a disagreement between the attorneys for property and financial affairs and the attorney for health and welfare, the decision of the attorney for health and welfare should prevail.'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

==Note==
Summary from OPG website.

'''Title:''' Re Scott (an order of the Senior Judge made on 11 January 2011)

'''Heading:''' Severance of restrictions fettering an attorney's authority

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

{{lpa-summary-link}}

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

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