CXP [2017] NSWCATGD 33

CXP [2017] NSWCATGD 33

Because clause 2, containing the required statement of intention for an enduring power of attorney, was deleted from the instrument, it failed to comply with the requirements of s 19(1)(a) of the Powers of Attorney Act 2003 (NSW) and thus was not an enduring power of attorney. Accordingly, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review it, and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Enduring Power of Attorney / Hearing and Determination at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
['enduring Power of Attorney' 'review of Power of Attorney' 'jurisdiction of Tribunal']
['guardianship' 'powers of Attorney'] ['enduring Power of Attorney' 'review of Power of Attorney' 'jurisdiction of Tribunal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Enduring Power of Attorney / Hearing and Determination at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the instrument as a 'reviewable power of attorney' within the meaning of s 33(1) Powers of Attorney Act 2003 (NSW)" 'Effect of deletion of clause expressing intention that the power of attorney be enduring']

Ratio Decidendi

Because clause 2, containing the required statement of intention for an enduring power of attorney, was deleted from the instrument, it failed to comply with the requirements of s 19(1)(a) of the Powers of Attorney Act 2003 (NSW) and thus was not an enduring power of attorney. Accordingly, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review it, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.']