The issue in this matter was for the Court to decide whether LPAs executed by P should be registered.
P suffered from Alzheimer’s and lived with the Applicant. On 16/08/17 P executed two LPA’s, one for property and affairs and one for health and welfare and both LPA’s appointed all 4 of P’s daughters. However, the Applicant objected to the LPA’s because she maintained that P lacked the requisite capacity at the time in order to grant the LPA’s.
P had instructed solicitors to prepare the LPA’s and before they were executed, a capacity assessment was obtained by the solicitors and it maintained that P had capacity to sign the LPA’s.
It was soon conceded by the Applicant that P did have capacity to execute the powers therefore the Court considered alternative reasons for refusing to register the LPA’s. In submissions from the Applicant, she stated that she didn’t believe that it was in P’s best interests for the LPA’s to be registered as her and her 3 sisters were not able to agree on anything and that this would be detrimental to P. Statements from the other 3 sisters also showed that the relationship between the 4 of them was acrimonious.
The Official Solicitor, acting on P’s behalf, urged the court to direct pursuant to section 22(4) MCA 2005 that neither LPA’s be registered.
Taking the relevant legal framework into account, as well as the Judgment in Re J  COPLR Con Vol 716 and all position statements, HHJ Sarah Richardson concluded that, as there was no prospect of the 4 sisters being able to pull together and make decisions together, neither LPA’s were to be registered and a panel Deputy for property and affairs was to be appointed.
The full judgement can be read here
If you have any questions regarding this summary case law please contact Christine Marsh here