X v. Y, Z [2000] EWCOP 144 (18 February 2000)

X v. Y, Z [2000] EWCOP 144 (18 February 2000)

The 1992 enduring power of attorney was not revoked by the 1997 power because there was no clear intention or unambiguous conduct to revoke; the coexistence of both powers is permissible under the law. The respondents are not unsuitable to be attorneys as there is no evidence of unfitness, and the donor's wishes should be respected.

Citation
[2000] EWCOP 144
Parties
Appellant: X; Respondent: Y; Respondent: Z
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enduring Powers of Attorney, Revocation of Powers of Attorney, Suitability of Attorneys, Agency Law
Mental Capacity Law Powers of Attorney Enduring Powers of Attorney Revocation of Powers of Attorney Suitability of Attorneys Agency Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Appellant

Y

Respondent

Z

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1992 enduring power of attorney was revoked by the 1997 power
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Y and Mrs Z are unsuitable to be Mrs E's attorneys

Ratio Decidendi

The 1992 enduring power of attorney was not revoked by the 1997 power because there was no clear intention or unambiguous conduct to revoke; the coexistence of both powers is permissible under the law. The respondents are not unsuitable to be attorneys as there is no evidence of unfitness, and the donor's wishes should be respected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The 1992 enduring power of attorney is to be registered forthwith.