LCQ [2022] NSWCATGD 10

LCQ [2022] NSWCATGD 10

The Tribunal reviewed the operation and effect of LCQ's enduring power of attorney because the relationship between the jointly appointed attorneys had broken down and the power of attorney was unworkable. It was in LCQ's best interests to remove QAY as attorney because QAY had repeatedly acted unilaterally, failed to consult KQZ as joint attorney, refused to provide full access to financial information, and made decisions about overseas funds and benefits to herself that were not shown to be in LCQ's best interests. KQZ had relevant experience and there was no evidence she had acted inappropriately, so she should remain as sole attorney; a financial management order was not in LCQ's best...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Review of an Enduring Power of Attorney / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The Tribunal carried out a review of the operation and effect of the enduring power of attorney made by LCQ on 15 June 2013 and removed QAY as attorney; KQZ remains sole attorney. No financial management order was made.
Legal Topics
['review of Enduring Power of Attorney' 'operation and Effect of Enduring Power of Attorney' 'removal of Attorney' 'joint Attorneys' 'fiduciary Duties of Attorney' 'best Interests of Principal' 'financial Management Order']
['guardianship and Administration' 'powers of Attorney'] ['review of Enduring Power of Attorney' 'operation and Effect of Enduring Power of Attorney' 'removal of Attorney' 'joint Attorneys' 'fiduciary Duties of Attorney' 'best Interests of Principal' 'financial Management Order']

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

Review of an Enduring Power of Attorney / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal should review the operation and effect of the enduring power of attorney made by LCQ on 15 June 2013.' "Whether the joint attorneys' relationship had broken down so that the enduring power of attorney was unworkable." 'Whether QAY should be removed as attorney under s 36(4)(b) of the Powers of Attorney Act 2003 (NSW).' 'Whether a financial management order should be made instead of, or in addition to, orders concerning the enduring power of attorney.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal reviewed the operation and effect of LCQ's enduring power of attorney because the relationship between the jointly appointed attorneys had broken down and the power of attorney was unworkable. It was in LCQ's best interests to remove QAY as attorney because QAY had repeatedly acted unilaterally, failed to consult KQZ as joint attorney, refused to provide full access to financial information, and made decisions about overseas funds and benefits to herself that were not shown to be in LCQ's best interests. KQZ had relevant experience and there was no evidence she had acted inappropriately, so she should remain as sole attorney; a financial management order was not in LCQ's best...

Court Disposition

The Tribunal carried out a review of the operation and effect of the enduring power of attorney made by LCQ on 15 June 2013 and removed QAY as attorney; KQZ remains sole attorney. No financial management order was made.

Orders

  • ['In relation to the enduring power of attorney made by LCQ on 15 June 2013 which appointed KQZ and QAY as attorney(s), the Tribunal determines, orders or declares to carry out a review of the operation and effect of the enduring power of attorney.' 'The appointment of QAY as an enduring power of attorney is...