It will depend on the wording of the enduring power of attorney (EPA). There are a number of duties imposed on an attorney ranging from a necessity to act only within the terms of their authority to accounting to the donor when required. The authority of attorneys encompasses both general authority, to the extent that they can do whatever their donor could do, to specific authority under the terms of the EPA. However, an interpretation of the EPA will be required in order to determine the full extent of any authority. So far as powers are concerned, there has been statutory intervention to determine the scope of the attorney's available activities in this area. For further guidance, see Practice Note: EPAs—attorney's duties and powers. The attorney has to comply with all the duties indicated above, but the principal duty is to act within the scope

A power of attorney is a written legal authorisation allowing B (an individual or other legal person) to act on behalf of A (likewise, either an individual or other legal person). B is then able to carry out acts on behalf of A without A being present, and such acts are treated as being the acts of A. For the long-term delegation of a power of attorney, a Lasting Power of Attorney (either over property and financial affairs, or over health and welfare) can be granted, and, subject to the necessary formalities, continues to have effect if A loses capacity. Such a power can therefore be extremely useful if there is a risk that capacity will be lost. See: Lasting powers of attorney—overview

If the deceased left a Will which appointed an executor and the appointment can take effect, the named executor may apply for a grant of representation. Under the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, SI 1987/2024, r 31 a person who is entitled to a grant of representation (such as an executor) may appoint an attorney for their use and benefit. For example, an executor may want to appoint an attorney if they are resident abroad or otherwise unavailable to act at the time. An attorney may also appoint their own attorney to apply for the grant of representation, where this form of delegation is allowed by the law of the deceased’s domicile (In the Goods of Abdul Hamid Bey (1898) 67 LJP 59, 78 LT 202 (not reported by LexisNexis®)). It is essential that the attorney is lawfully appointed for them to take out the grant. For a general

In answering this Q&A, research has been limited to cover execution as a deed on behalf of a company and does not relate to a deed being executed by the director in its personal capacity. Companies can execute deeds in their own name and in their own right by way of: • fixation of the company seal • signature of two authorised signatories • a director in the presence of a witness who attests to the director’s signature As with execution of simple contracts by a company, authorised signatories will be: • all directors • company secretary or joint company secretary • attorneys appointed under powers of attorney Where

Section 549(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) provides that the directors of a company must not exercise any power of the company to allot shares or grant rights to subscribe for, or to convert any security into, such shares, except in accordance with CA 2006, s 550 (private company with single class of shares) or CA 2006, s 551 (authorisation by company). This Q&A assumes that a company is seeking to allot shares in accordance with CA 2006, s 551. Under CA 2006, s 551(1), the directors of a company may exercise a power of that company to allot shares or grant rights to subscribe for, or to convert any security into, shares only if they have authority to do so. That authority must be given by shareholders’ resolution

Reliance losses The court may award reliance-based damages to put the innocent party in the position it would have been had they never entered into the contract. Such damages compensate for any expenses or losses incurred as a result of the non-performance under the terms of the contract. A straightforward type of reliance damage is where the claimant incurs expenditure which he would not have undertaken at all had the defendant performed his contractual obligations, or where he allows himself to suffer some other loss he would not otherwise have suffered. See Expenditure resulting from breach of contract at [19.62] of Common Law Series: The Law of Damages. For example, in Anglia Television, an actor agreed to film a television series but pulled out because he was double-booked. The series was aborted and the television company successfully sued the actor for wasted expenditure incurred in connection with the show. For further information on reliance loss generally, see our Lexis+® UK Dispute Resolution Practice

It is unclear from the question whether what is being prescribed for: • is a right of way for fire escape purposes only over an access route, or • whether the access route over which the right by prescription is claimed is for fire escape purposes only The only case which comes anywhere near to dealing with these issues is that of Young & Cox’s Brewery PLC v Richard John Gordon (2001) (not reported by LexisNexis®). In that case the defendant had erected a fire escape exiting onto an alleyway between two properties. The claimant failed in its claim to ownership of the alleyway but succeed in establishing a right of way by prescription and that the fire escape substantially interfered with the exercise of that right. Consequently the defendant was ordered to remove the fire escape. There is no reason, however, as a matter of principle why a party could not prescribe for a

The essence of prescriptive rights by long use is founded on the irrebuttable presumption that if a right has been enjoyed for at least twenty years, that right had a lawful origin and thus will be upheld. The user claiming the right must show that it has been nec vi, nec clam, nec precario—without force, secrecy or permission: Gardner v Hodgson’s Kingston Brewery Co. A prescriptive right is most frequently claimed in respect of a right of way but is not limited to such rights. The right claimed must however be a right that can lawfully be granted: Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood. The test for an easement remains as set out in Re Ellenborough Park [1955] EWCA Civ 4 (not reported by LexisNexis®UK), there must be a dominant

This Q&A raises two issues: the manner in which rights can be gained by prescription and the extent to which this can happen over a common. It will be necessary to rely upon those rules relating to prescription where the house owner cannot point either to an express deed by which the right of way was granted or circumstances by which it can be implied either by necessity or under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows. After 20 years’ use of the way as of right, it is assumed that there was at some stage an express grant but that it can no longer be located. As the question suggests, the use must be without force, secrecy or permission, or ‘nec vi, nec clam, nec precario’. In the scenario in question, access is gained through a gap in a boundary

Easements can be established other than by express deed and implied grant through a process known as prescription. Prescription is defined as ‘a title acquired by use or enjoyment had during the time and in the manner fixed by law’. One of the most common ways that an easement is established by prescription is under the Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832). By virtue of PA 1832, s 2, an easement can be established by the dominant owner showing twenty year’s use without interruption of the servient land. There is, of course, the proviso that this twenty-year use was not achieved by violence

An easement is a right which is: • annexed to one piece of land • to utilise another piece of land, and • that is in different ownership • to: ◦ do something on the other land

No easement can exist without both an identifiable servient and dominant tenement and those two estates being in separate ownership. See Practice Note: Easements—nature and characteristics. The grantor of an express easement creates a proprietary right that is annexed to land or estate (the dominant tenement) not a personal right that vests in the owner of that land. A number of well-known consequences flow from the fact the easement is attached or annexed to the land/estate, not the person: • anyone entitled to use the land may exercise the rights constituting the easement • the easement may be enforced by anyone entitled to possession of the land • the easement cannot be alienated separately from the land These consequences highlight the fact that the identity of the owner from time to time is not