Enduring powers of attorney

Although the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) effectively replaced the enduring power of attorney (EPA) with the lasting power of attorney (LPA), many EPAs still exist, a large number of which remain unused. They are still legal and effective documents and practitioners will need to use and register them for some time yet. For an introduction to EPAs, see Practice Note: EPAs—introduction.

Capacity to create or revoke an EPA

An EPA will only be valid if the donor had the requisite mental capacity at the date of execution of the power. If the donor did not have the requisite capacity at the time that the EPA was created, an objection may be entered to the registration of the EPA on the ground that the power is not valid as an EPA.

Capacity is not defined in the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 (EPAA 1985) but the leading case on the degree of capacity required to create an EPA is Re K; Re F [1988] 1 All ER 358, in which it was held that the following should

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Finance Bill 2025 update: Public Bill Committee to begin in January

The Public Bill Committee is expected to begin scrutiny of the Finance Bill on 28 January 2025. Comments on the Bill are invited before then, and revised explanatory notes have been issued to cover the Government’s proposed Pillar 2 amendments.

Private Client weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC updates form IHT100f; (2) Knight v Barnsley, which held that the Court of Protection did have jurisdiction to determine a dispute over a claimant’s deputy’s release from reverse indemnity undertakings; (3) Manolete Partners Plc v White, in which the Court of Appeal held that occupation pension benefits are generally inalienable; (4) Hannah v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) permitted the amendment of grounds of appeal to include ground that the transfer of assets abroad regime is incompatible with EU law; (5) Hirachand v Hirachand, a decision of the Supreme Court which makes it clear that success fees cannot be included in awards for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; and (6) the Chancellor has confirmed that the Spring Forecast will take place on 26 March 2025.

Question of the week: Does the inheritance tax exemption for transfers between spouses apply where both spouses are non-UK domiciled and make a transfer of UK situs assets between them?

This Q&A considers the exemption from inheritance tax on a transfer between spouses who both have non-UK domicile status.

Supreme Court unanimously allows appeal (Hirachand v Hirachand and another)

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) appeal and excluded from the order, in favour of the daughter, any sum for the success fee. Richard Dew, barrister at Ten Old Square, comments that the decision that costs cannot be recovered as part of the award restores the position to what it ought to have been and Brie Stevens-Hoare KC of Gatehouse Chambers highlights that the decision will ensure that applicants who use conditional fee agreements to access justice pay the price of their costs being conditional. Oliver Ingham of 3 Paper Buildings further notes the Supreme Court has made clear that success fees remain the responsibility of the claimant, preserving the integrity of the wider costs regime and ensuring consistency across civil litigation.