Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Ex-tempore judgment of Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson delivered on the 20 th March 2025.
      As the terms of Clause 4 of the explanatory memorandum which relates to this EPA indicate, if you give your attorney or attorneys a general power in relation to all your property affairs, he/she/they will be able to deal with your money, your property and may be able to sell your house. I would also, in relation to the explanatory memorandum, draw attention to the provisions of Clause 16 and Clause 18.
      "Affairs" is defined in s.4 of the 1996 Act as meaning " business or financial affairs of the donor" .
"There is nothing in the Act that explicitly prohibits an attorney under an EPA from representing a donor in divorce proceedings. The question is whether the power is granted, not whether it is forbidden."
I find some contra-indication between the first and second sentence on that submission. What power was given here? The power given here was the power to deal with the financial and business affairs of the donor and in that context the donor can do anything that can be lawfully done by attorney. The acts which the donor can lawfully do cannot be interpreted to extend to areas outside the scope of the power granted namely outside the scope of business and financial affairs and property and personal welfare as specified.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.