• Level 5, Evandale Place, 142 Bundall Road, Bundall, QLD, Australia

Uncategorised

Queensland Enduring Powers of Attorney

The usefulness of Enduring Powers of Attorney cannot be underestimated, and should be considered as part of any estate or business planning exercise. But what is an enduring power of attorney, how are they made, and should you agree to be an attorney?  This article sets out the basic framework for the instrument.  In a future article we will give examples of where things can go wrong. What is an Enduring Power of Attorney? An Enduring Power of Attorney is a document whereby an adult (called “the principal”) authorises one or more people (“eligible attorneys”) to do things in relation to certain financial or personal matters for them, those being things that the principal could do by an attorney if they had capacity when the power is exercised.  In Queensland, Enduring Powers of Attorney are created under the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (“The Act”).  Unlike a General Power of Attorney, an Enduring Power of Attorney continues to be effective if the principal suffers from impaired capacity for the matter (eg is temporarily or permanently unable to make the decision for themselves).  Also the powers are to some extent identified as “financial matters” and “personal matters”, with different people quite often being appointed for the respective categories. Who can be the attorney? To qualify as an eligible attorney, by section 29 of the Act, the attorney must be a person who: The Public Trustee or a trustee company under the Trustee Companies Act 1968 may be appointed, and for personal matters, the public guardian may be appointed. The power of attorney can be in respect of financial matters (ie relating to the principal’s financial or property matters) and for personal matters which is defined as being a matter – other than a special personal matter or a special health matter – relating to the principal’s care including their healthcare or welfare.  Schedule 2 to the Act sets out examples of what a personal matter might include.  A special personal matter (ie something that cannot be done by an attorney) is a matter that is listed in section 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act, including matters such as making or revoking a will, making or revoking a power of attorney, voting, and a number of other matters of personal significance.  Special health matters (ie which an attorney cannot agree to for the principal). Capacity to make an Enduring Power of Attorney By section 41, a principal has the capacity to make an Enduring Power of Attorney only if they are capable of making it freely and voluntarily, and understand the nature and effect of the power of attorney, including understanding that: This brings about important issues concerning powers.  Sometimes principals make enduring powers of attorney to commence immediately, for various reasons.  This means that the power of attorney exists while the principal remains able to do the things for themselves.  If this occurs however, the attorney should not act inconsistently with the wishes of the principal while they have capacity.  But then there can be questions as to whether the principal has lost capacity, and if that capacity was lost, then there can be questions about whether or not the principal regained capacity.  If the attorney is only to commence when the principal loses capacity, then in most cases, the power will cease if and when the principal regains capacity.  Attorneys should be careful to ensure that there is evidence that the power has commenced, as they will be acting without authority if the attorney only commences when the principal loses capacity, and evidence demonstrates that capacity was not lost. Revoking or ending an Enduring Power of Attorney The power of attorney can be revoked by the principal at any time if the principal has the necessary capacity to make a new power of attorney for the particular power. Revocation of an Enduring Power of Attorney must be in the approved form, except to the extent that the power of attorney gives power for a health matter, which need not be an approved form. Revocation is also effected by: When an attorney’s power ends, if the attorney was a joint attorney for the matter, then the remaining attorney or attorneys may continue to exercise the power. Form of Power of Attorney There are prescribed forms for the power of attorney in Queensland, however documents validly prepared and executed in another state will be effective to the extent that it gives powers that could be validly given under the Act. To comply with formal requirements for a Queensland Enduring Power of Attorney, the power of attorney must be: The current approved form of Enduring Power of Attorney is a lengthy document which identifies a number of options for the principal to stipulate how the power is to be exercised, including their wishes, and whether third parties are to be consulted. The form of Enduring Power of Attorney and the guide to it can be found online through the Queensland Government website. Obligations of attorneys Becoming an attorney under an Enduring Power of Attorney means taking on significant obligations and it is not without risk. First, the attorney must exercise the power honestly and with reasonable diligence to protect the principal’s interests, and that has the result that an attorney can be liable to compensate the principal if they fail to do so.  Second, the attorney must exercise the powers subject to the terms of the document.  Third, the attorney must sign documents noting that it does so as attorney for the principal.  Fourth, an attorney who knows that their power has been revoked, must not exercise or purport to exercise the power.  Fifth, the attorney must avoid entering into a transaction by which there is or might be or results in a conflict between their own interests or the interests of a close associate or relation or another duty, with the interests of the principal.  This is subject to the power of the principal (if they have capacity) or the

Forcing a sale of a jointly owned property QLD, QBM Lawyers

Can Co-owner Force the Sale of Property in Queensland?

Forcing a sale of a jointly owned property QLD… Is it possible? What to do? Read to find out! When people, including family members, buy property together, disputes can arise if one party wants to sell. Section 38 of the Property Law Act (QLD) allows a court, upon application by any co-owner, to appoint trustees to sell the property. This means a court can appoint individuals to handle the sale if one co-owner refuses to sell. Process of Selling Property Under Statutory Trustees The Property Law Act outlines how the property should be sold and the rights of co-owners to bid. Courts generally find there is “practically speaking no defense” to such an application (Goodwin v Goodwin [2004] QCA 50). Case Study: McPaul v Massignani and Anor [2023] QSC 98 In the recent Queensland Supreme Court case of McPaul v Massignani and Anor [2023] QSC 98, Chief Justice Bowskill addressed a situation where the appointment of statutory trustees was requested to sell a property. This case involved two sisters who had purchased a property together with the intention of joint development. When one sister decided to sell her share after learning that the property could not be subdivided. Whereas, the other sister opposed the sale based on a belief of long-term ownership. The court found that the evidence did not support an equitable right to prevent the sale. Clear and unequivocal language would be required to prevent someone from exercising their right to sell. The discussions about the property’s long-term ownership did not have the legal effect of blocking the sale. Importance of Planning for Co-Ownership Disputes This decision highlights the importance of seeking legal advice and planning for potential disputes when buying property together. Other circumstances, such as bankruptcy or death, can also lead to a forcing a sale of a jointly owned property QLD. Contact QBM Lawyers For advice in respect of co-ownership of properties and remedies if ownership arrangements breakdown, contact: Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlaw.com.au Megan Hanneman at meganh@qbmlaw.com.au

Restraints on Employees under scrutiny

The federal government is in a consultation process to consider reform to law relating to restraints.  In April 2024, the treasury produced an issues paper “Non-competes and other restraints: understanding the impact on jobs, business and productivity” which is available at treasury.gov.au.  The issues paper identifies the typical types of restraint clauses on employees, including: The discussion paper deals (at pages 12 and 13) with cascading restraints.  Cascading restraints (also called stepped restraints or ladder restraints) are a form of restraint which identifies: The clauses operate so that each separate obligation can be combined with each other so that – for example – at its widest the restraint might apply against working in the industry within Australia for 3 years, but then separately, it would apply to working for specific clients within Australia for 6 months and so on.  While the first in most cases is likely to be void, the second is potentially valid, and there are any number of other combinations which would also be valid.  A restraint with (say) 4 restrained activities, 4 geographical areas, and 4 restraint periods has over 60 combinations.  Further, a restraint with a wider area might be valid for a short time and a restraint with a smaller area might be valid for a longer time.  This then gives rise to enormous uncertainty on the part of the employee who could be sued by the employer and would have to go through the litigation process at significant expense, and with the prospect of it being responsible for damages and costs, and in circumstances where the court is unlikely to determine the outcome until well into or after the expiry of the greatest restraint period.  The issues paper cites the study “Employment restraints of trade: an empirical study of Australian court judgments” as reporting that out of 145 court judgments where employers attempted to enforce a restraint at an interim level (ie as an injunction pending trial), the employers were mostly (53.8%) unsuccessful.  This however does not take into account the fact that: The issues paper does not suggest potential methods to resolve these matters.   One remedy might be to have an unfair contract terms regime in respect of employment contracts as is the case for consumer contracts, including business to business contracts.  It seems odd that an employer could include a clause in an employment contract and bind their employee to it, when the same clause in a contract between the employer and a contractor might attract penalties under the unfair contracts legislation.   This could discourage employers from including clauses that are unfair. At this stage, the public consultation period has ended, with the competition review to advise the government on outcomes in the second half of 2024. For advice relating to restraints in employment and other agreements, please contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au

Supreme Court finds that high rise developer owes duties outside of the contract

In the recent decision of Brightman & Ors v Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 149, His Honour Justice Applegarth considered the implied obligation of contractual parties to cooperate in the context of a number of “off the plan” sales.  Relevantly: The Applicant buyers bought the application before the Supreme Court for relief based upon the implied (ie not written in the contract) duty of the parties to cooperate.  This duty was discussed in His Honour’s judgment, including: While the contract was not subject to finance, the court considered that the necessity to obtain finance was in order to enable each buyer to perform a fundamental obligation under the contract (ie to pay the price) and that it was implicit that the contract promised that the buyer would have the opportunity to obtain that finance, in particular during the 14 day period following the notice to settle.  In the court’s view, in practical terms, this was a duty to cooperate by allowing access to the buyer for a valuation to obtain that finance. At paragraph 71, the court indicated that it was inclined to declare that the developer’s duty to cooperate to allow the buyer the benefit of the contract required it to permit access to the property by a valuer appointed by the buyer in sufficient time to provide a valuation advice in advance of completion. The court found that the developer had breached that duty by unreasonably delaying in responding to the requests for access and hindered the buyers obtaining finance.  While the developer argued that it was the buyers’ fault in not taking steps to organise third party finance ahead of the need to settle, the court noted that while a finance approval can be organised that is conditional on inspection and valuation, no such inspection or valuation was made possible until 8 July 2024 – well into the 14 day period.  As a consequence, the court determined that the developer was not entitled to call for completion of the contract on 16 July 2024.  This had the consequence that the buyers would not be in breach if they did not settle on that date.  The argument and decision raise a number of interesting questions.  It is not uncommon for developers to call for settlement when the titles office has created titles for the new lot but before work has completely finished in relation to those new lots.  Sometimes, those issues can have impacts on the final value of the property.  Does this mean that a contract is unfair if the developer can insist on settlement without allowing for valuation inspections a reasonable period before the settlement date? For advice in relation to contractual obligations and commercial and property matters, please contact our commercial lawyers, Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au, Megan Sarroff at Megans@qbmlaw.com.au and Sally Chipman at sallyc@qbmlaw.com.au