I am instructed in a matter where an application has been made by a local authority for the LPA issued by the donor in favour of two of his children to be revoked. Unfortunately, this is heading for trial and the local authority seem to have a bottomless pit when it comes to the costs they are spending on this matter, as Counsel are heavily involved in all aspects of the matter.
My clients view, and one that I support, is that essentially the local authority had issues with the care that was to be provided by them and as the attorneys would not accept the LA view the LA made an application for a care decision to be made by the Court, but at the same time, over-egged their application by adding that the attorneyship should be revoked. It is accepted that the attorneys have not benefited financially but there appointment is being challenged on the basis that it is in the Donor’s best interests for the appointment to be revoked. This is effectively a ‘catch all’ provision available to the Court
My understanding is that the general view of the Court of Protection (certainly during the ‘Master Lush era’) was that it is ‘too violent a reaction’ to revoke an attorney’s appointment for general misdemeanours, and a revocation needs to be substantially justified as opposed to holding the attorneys to an unreasonable standard. Can anyone point me to case law that may assist (or otherwise). It would be useful to have a particular example of what has previously been deemed to be acceptable although I do of course appreciate that each matter will turn on its own facts.
I Will Solicitors Ltd