Attorneys’ duties under enduring powers of attorney
Kevin Callinicos • 14 December 2016

A recent judgment issued by the Court of Appeal has clarified the duties of an attorney under an Enduring Power of Attorney (“EPOA”) in relation to Property, particularly in circumstances when the donor (i.e. the person giving the power to the attorney), is mentally capable.
The case is ­Vernon v Public Trust [2016] NZCA 388. The essential facts are these:

  1. Kenneth Vernon appointed his son Ashley Vernon his attorney under an EPOA in relation to Property.
  2. Kenneth was aged 86 in March 2006, when his wife Naomi died. Following his wife’s death, Kenneth lived with Ashley and his wife, Beverley (“the Vernons”) until 2008, when he went into a rest home.
  3. When Kenneth went to live with the Vernons, his assets amounted to about $329,000.00.When Kenneth moved into the rest home, his assets had been reduced to $11,000.00. During that time, Ashley had controlled Kenneth’s bank accounts using the EPOA.
  4. Kenneth’s Will divided the balance of his Estate equally between Ashley and Kenneth’s grandson, Dante (being the only child of Kenneth’s other son, Chris, who had already died).
  5. Following Kenneth’s death in 2011, the Public Trust was appointed as replacement administrator of his Will. In 2014, the Public Trust issued proceedings in the High Court against the Vernons to recover the funds withdrawn from Kenneth’s account, alleging that Ashley had misapplied them for the joint benefit of him and Beverley. The Vernons denied liability and the claim went to trial.
  6. In the High Court, Justice Kós found that Ashley had exercised undue influence over Kenneth in obtaining Kenneth’s consent to the majority of the bank transactions, and found in the alternative that the transactions constituted a breach of Ashley’s fiduciary duty owed to Kenneth and on the grounds on unconscionability.
  7. The Vernons appealed to the Court of Appeal.
  8. The Court of Appeal decided that:
  9. The High Court decision could not be sustained on the grounds of “undue influence” because, once the Judge found that the transactions did not occur with Kenneth’s consent, it could not be said that the consent was obtained by “undue influence”.
  10. However, the Court of Appeal sustained Justice Kós’ alternative finding that Ashley’s actions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and were unconscionable. The Court rejected the Vernon’s argument that the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 was a code and that the fiduciary duties could not be implied.
  11. However, the Court of Appeal rejected that submission where the donor is not mentally incapable.Under an EPOA the donor appoints the donee to be the donor’s agent or attorney. Although, an EPOA is created by the Act which prescribes certain powers, that does not exclude the imposition of equitable obligations.Equity imposes enforceable duties on an agent. Fiduciary obligations are a necessary incident of the relationship of principal and agent.
  12. As a result, the Court of Appeal found that Ashley owed Kenneth fiduciary duties whenever he exercising his powers under the EPOA, and that in these circumstances, Ashley had used his powers for improper purposes (to financially benefit himself and his wife), and this was directly contrary to Kenneth’s property interests.
  13. As a result of this decision, it is clear that the duties owed by attorneys to donors under an EPOA are more than those expressly stated in the Act and/or the power itself, but are, much like trustees, fiduciary duties which include the duty to act openly and fairly, to exercise reasonable care in managing the financial affairs, to keep personal and fiduciary property separate and to avoid conflicts of interest.

Join our Newsletter

Stay tuned

Contact Us

"Custody" isn't actually a legal word in NZ anymore - here's what we say instead

20 September 2026
He taonga to mokopuna, kia whāngaia, kia tipu, kia rea - a child is a treasure, to be nurtured, to grow, to flourish. A common thing we hear from clients is "I want custody of my children." While most people understand what "custody" means, the reality is that custody is no longer a legal term used in New Zealand family law. In fact, the term was removed from our legislation more than 20 years ago. So, what changed? The Care of Children Act 2004 replaced the old concepts of "custody" and "access" with language that focuses more directly on children's needs and parental responsibilities. Instead of talking about custody, the Family Court now talks about: Day-to-day care (who the child lives with and who looks after them on a daily basis); and Contact (the time a child spends with a parent or other important person when they are not in that person's care). The change was intentional. The law moved away from language that can sound like a child is something to be "owned" or "won" by one parent. What does "day-to-day care" mean? Day-to-day care refers to the practical care of a child, including: Where the child lives; Their daily routine; School attendance; Meals, bedtime, and general supervision; and The everyday decisions involved in raising them. A parent can have: Sole day-to-day care; or Shared day-to-day care arrangements. There is no legal presumption that one parent should have day-to-day care over the other. The Court's focus is always on what is in the child's welfare and best interests. What about "contact"? What many people previously called "access" is now referred to as contact . Contact can take many forms, including: Weekend visits; School holiday time; Telephone calls; Video calls; Supervised contact; or Other arrangements that allow a child to maintain a relationship with an important person. The Court recognises that children generally benefit from having ongoing relationships with both parents, provided doing so is safe and in their best interests. Does this mean I can't say "custody"? Not at all. Many people still use terms like "custody," "shared custody," and "access" in everyday conversation, and most lawyers will understand exactly what you mean. However, if you're involved in Family Court proceedings, you'll hear terms such as: Day-to-day care Contact Guardianship Parenting orders These are the legal concepts that will appear in Court documents and orders. Why does the language matter? The shift away from "custody" reflects a broader change in how New Zealand family law views parenting after separation. Rather than focusing on which parent "gets" the child, the law focuses on: The child's welfare and best interests; Maintaining important relationships; Encouraging parents to work together where possible; and Ensuring children are protected from harm. Ultimately, Family Court decisions are not about determining a "winner" and a "loser." They are about creating arrangements that best support the child's wellbeing. As family lawyers , we offer advice, guidance and representation in family law matters, if you would like assistance or to talk to someone, contact us today. Written by: Eva Leutele
A designed graphic with a photo of Casey Hucker, and her name on a black background with red and white text

Spotlight on Casey Hucker | Property Lawyer

14 September 2026
Meet Casey Hucker, Property Law Partner at Willis Legal, dedicated to guiding clients through property law. Contact us for expert legal assistance today!
Close-up of a man's hands typing on a laptop

Risks of DIY legal documents drafted by AI

8 September 2026
The age of AI is rapidly changing many aspects of our lives, however, AI has perils for lay people using it to draft legal documents or obtain legal advice.
Show More