OPG seeks Clarification from the Court of Protection

3rd July 2023Manisha Chauhan0

OPG seeks Clarification from the Court of Protection in Re Public Guardians Severance Applications [2023] EWCOP 24

The Office of Public Guardian (OPG) has submitted an application to the Court of Protection (CoP) seeking judgement on 9 cases which include questions they are often asked about to seek clarification. The matters are in reference to:-

  • Majority ruling by attorneys
  • Replacement attorneys
  • Lead attorneys

With regards majority ruling, the OPG have asked if severance applications should carry on being made if instruments seek to instruct multiple attorneys to act on a majority basis. It also asked whether an LPA including the word “should” or similar words, would make it a binding instruction or a non-binding preference.

With regards replacement attorneys, the OPG have sought clarification on whether it is lawful for the donor to replace a replacement attorney and if this is not possible, whether a replacement attorney can be re-appointed to act solely.

Lastly, with regards lead attorneys, the OPG have asked if it is lawful to give one attorney leading powers ahead of others where attorneys are appointed to act jointly and severally, which is something we have been asked in our technical inbox on a few occasions.

In addition to this, the OPG have asked if it is lawful to appoint attorneys jointly and severally but include instructions in the LPA for attorneys to deal with separate parts of the donor’s affairs or for restrictions to be included in the LPA.


On considering the matters and cases put forward by the OPG, Mr Justice Hayden has offered some guidance stating that with regards primary power being given to one attorney over others where attorneys are appointed to act jointly and severally, this is not possible as must all act equally.

With regards instructions being included in the LPA for attorneys to deal with separate matters of the donor’s affairs, Mr Justice Hayden advised that the statute does not provide for this and that the difference between the language of the statute and the forms was “dangerous” and therefore needs to be revisited.

With regards replacement attorneys, Mr Justice Hayden accepted that section 10(8)(b) was slightly ambiguous but also added that this section states a secondary replacement attorney is allowed and “a scheme which prohibited the appointment of a secondary replacement might, equally logically, conflict with the objectives of the legislation.”

The full judgement can be found here: – https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2023/24.html

Manisha Chauhan

Manisha joined the Society’s Technical Advice Team in July 2019 having previously worked as an Employment Solicitor in Warwickshire before relocating to Lincolnshire. Manisha provides advice on technical queries for Society Members and ongoing support on our professional drafting software, Sure Will Writer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About The Society of Will Writers

The Society of Will Writers is a non-profit making self-regulatory organisation whose primary objectives are the advancement, education and ethical standards within the will writing profession.

Contact Us

The Society of Will Writers
Chancery House
Whisby Way

what3words: ///ever.embellish.hissing

Tel: 01522 687888
E-mail: [email protected]

SWW, logo, white, crest, seal, will, pen, quill, ink, paper, book, scales, legal, blue, gold,

Copyright by The Society of Will Writers. All rights reserved.
Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 02918900.



If you have not been registered for the SWW members Area, please contact us. Your personal data will only be used for the purposes described in our privacy policy.

Already have account?

Lost Password

Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.