Enduring power of attorney — jurisdiction to revoke appointment — whether application to review should be struck out — statutory interpretation — Family Courts Rules 2002, r 193 — Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, ss 93A, 103 and 105. An application to revoke or review an enduring power of attorney (EPA) was struck out under r 193 of the FCR after it was found that the Court had no jurisdiction to revoke the EPA, and there was no reasonable basis for review. As the donor of the EPA had capacity at the time of the proceeding, a process of statutory interpretation was required to determine whether jurisdiction to revoke existed in such circumstances under the PPPRA. Relevant was an amendment to s 105 in 2007 which removed the wording "has not acted" from the provision. Revocation must go through s 105 despite s 103 providing for "any order" the court thinks fit. The applicant sought for the omitted wording to be read back into the legislation, and submitted it's removal was the result of a drafting slip. The Judge declined to read the wording back into s 105 because if it was the result of a drafting slip, it was for Parliament to remedy rather than the Court. Accordingly, there was no jurisdiction to revoke the EPA under s 105(1)(a). Regarding review, no valid grounds were raised as the conduct complained of was within the powers of the EPA. Judgment Date: 8 December 2016. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *