X v. Y, Z [2000] EWHC Ch 144 (18th February, 2000)

X v. Y, Z [2000] EWHC Ch 144 (18th February, 2000)

The 1992 power was not revoked by the 1997 power because there was no clear intention or unambiguous conduct to revoke; both powers could coexist, and the respondents were not unsuitable to act as attorneys as family discord alone did not meet the statutory threshold.

Citation
[2000] EWHC Ch 144
Parties
Appellant: X; Respondent: Y; Respondent: Z
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enduring Powers of Attorney, Revocation of Powers of Attorney, Suitability of Attorneys, Court of Protection Procedure
Mental Capacity Law Equity and Trusts Enduring Powers of Attorney Revocation of Powers of Attorney Suitability of Attorneys Court of Protection Procedure

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 3 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  1. 1 Whether the 1992 enduring power of attorney was revoked by the 1997 power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 the donor's attorneys

Ratio Decidendi

The 1992 power was not revoked by the 1997 power because there was no clear intention or unambiguous conduct to revoke; both powers could coexist, and the respondents were not unsuitable to act as attorneys as family discord alone did not meet the statutory threshold.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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