Does the petitioner have to be a party to a power of attorney where he is only named in the Power of Attorney?

The petitioner's submission is that he is not a party to the power of attorney, being only an appointee under it. He points out that he did not execute it, having only witnessed its execution by the grantor. The fact that he is named in it is not enough, he says, to make him a party to it in the sense contemplated by the Lord Chancellor in Seal v. Claridge. I do not follow this argument. The grantee in that case was "only named" in the bill of sale, just as the petitioner was "only named" in the power of attorney in the present case. Under the bill of sale, the grantor bound himself in law by granting rights of property to the grantee. Under the power of attorney, the grantor bound herself in law by granting rights to the grantee to dispose of her property, on her behalf. That which was granted in each case is different; but the legal mechanism by which it was done is essentially the same.

A bill of sale confers property upon the grantee for his use and benefit. A power of attorney confers powers to deal with property for the use and benefit of others, not the grantee. The attorney is therefore not a party to the property transactions which he conducts for the grantor with the other persons who become parties to those transactions; the attorney is only an agent or facilitator of those transactions for the grantor. The attorney remains, however, a person named in the instrument by which he is appointed and in that sense is interested in the same way as a party to the transaction which it embodies. He very clearly has a substantial interest under the terms of that instrument in that transaction, even though he can have no beneficial interest in the dealings which he is thereby authorized to transact for the grantor. And this is clearly so where the attorney, as here, was present and witnessed the execution of the deed appointing him, thereafter accepting delivery of it from the grantor and acting upon it. The fact that the attorney is a solicitor makes no more difference in the present case than it did in Seal v. Claridge.