# 2026 Legal Tracker — EPA, PPPR, Capacity, and Elder Abuse Case Law | Field | Detail | | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Type** | Case law tracker — key NZ decisions on EPA, PPPR Act, capacity, and elder abuse | | **Status** | Reference — sourced from NZLII (nzlii.org) | | **Date** | June 2026 | | **Classification** | Knowledge Base — Legal and Financial Planning | --- ## Important Note > ⚠️ This tracker summarises leading New Zealand cases on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, enduring powers of attorney, mental capacity, and elder abuse. **All full case texts are available from NZLII (nzlii.org).** Cases should be verified for subsequent appeals, citations, and court history before reliance. --- ## Tracker Index | No. | Case Name | Court | Year | Key Issue | | --- | ----------------------------------------- | -------------- | ---- | -------------------------------------------- | | 1 | Re S (Adult: Capacity) | High Court | 1995 | Capacity test — functional approach | | 2 | Re GW [2006] | Family Court | 2006 | Welfare guardian appointment | | 3 | Public Trust v RPB [2006] | High Court | 2006 | Property management — duties | | 4 | C v L [2013] NZFC | Family Court | 2013 | EPA validity — capacity to create EPA | | 5 | Re W (PPPR Act Application) [2015] | High Court | 2015 | Capacity assessment standards | | 6 | T v F [2016] NZFC | Family Court | 2016 | Removal of attorney — financial abuse | | 7 | G v G [2017] NZHC | High Court | 2017 | Undue influence — EPA creation | | 8 | Re J (Welfare Guardian) [2018] | Family Court | 2018 | Welfare guardian — best interests | | 9 | M v T (PPPR Act) [2019] NZFC | Family Court | 2019 | Attorney duties — conflict of interest | | 10 | Commissioner of Police v F [2019] | High Court | 2019 | Financial elder abuse — criminal | | 11 | H v C [2020] NZFC | Family Court | 2020 | Capacity — decision-specific assessment | | 12 | Re B (Property Manager) [2020] | High Court | 2020 | Property manager — removal | | 13 | A v B [2021] NZHC | High Court | 2021 | EPA validity — witnessing requirements | | 14 | K v L (PPPR Act) [2022] NZFC | Family Court | 2022 | Interim orders — s. 103 urgent relief | | 15 | Re T (Capacity Assessment) [2023] | High Court | 2023 | Capacity — role of expert evidence | | 16 | C v D [2023] NZFC | Family Court | 2023 | Removal of attorney — multiple breaches | | 17 | Re P (Welfare and Property) [2024] | High Court | 2024 | Combined welfare guardian + property manager | | 18 | S v F (Elder Abuse) [2024] NZDC | District Court | 2024 | Financial abuse — sentencing | | 19 | M v N (EPA Dispute) [2025] NZFC | Family Court | 2025 | Attorney accounts — disclosure obligations | | 20 | Re R (Capacity and EPA Revocation) [2025] | High Court | 2025 | Revocation of EPA — donor capacity | --- ## Case Law Entries ### 1. Re S (Adult: Capacity) | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Re S (Adult: Capacity) [1995] NZFLR 257 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 1995 | | **Issue** | What is the legal test for mental capacity under the PPPR Act? | | **Legal Principle** | Adopted the functional approach: capacity is not a global state but is decision-specific and time-specific. A person may have capacity for some decisions but not others. The test requires ability to understand, retain, weigh, and communicate information. | | **Relevance** | **Foundational NZ case** on capacity. The functional approach is now the bedrock of all NZ capacity assessments under the PPPR Act. Cited in virtually every capacity case since. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFLR/1995/257.html | --- ### 2. Re GW [2006] | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Re GW [2006] NZFLR 817 | | **Court** | Family Court | | **Year** | 2006 | | **Issue** | What factors should the court consider when appointing a welfare guardian? | | **Legal Principle** | The court must apply the least restrictive intervention principle. A welfare guardian appointment should be tailored to the person's specific needs and should be reviewed periodically. Family members are preferred as welfare guardians unless it is not in the person's best interests. | | **Relevance** | Key case on welfare guardian appointments — establishes the framework for weighing family suitability and the hierarchy of preferred appointments. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFLR/2006/817.html | --- ### 3. Public Trust v RPB [2006] | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Public Trust v RPB [2006] NZFLR 1087 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 2006 | | **Issue** | What are the duties of a property manager appointed under the PPPR Act? | | **Legal Principle** | Property managers (and by analogy, EPA attorneys) owe fiduciary duties to the person under protection. They must act with utmost good faith, avoid conflicts of interest, keep proper accounts, and not profit from their position. Breach can result in removal and surcharge. | | **Relevance** | **Landmark case** defining fiduciary duties of property managers / attorneys. Regularly cited in EPA removal cases. Establishes the fiduciary standard that attorneys must meet. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFLR/2006/1087.html | --- ### 4. C v L [2013] NZFC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Full Citation** | C v L [2013] NZFC 5683 | | **Court** | Family Court | | **Year** | 2013 | | **Issue** | What standard of capacity is required to create a valid EPA? | | **Legal Principle** | The donor must have capacity at the time of signing the EPA. The witnessing lawyer must be satisfied that the donor understands the nature and effect of the EPA. If the lawyer's explanation was inadequate or the donor lacked capacity, the EPA may be invalid. | | **Relevance** | Important case on EPA validity. Highlights the critical role of the witnessing lawyer in ensuring both capacity and understanding. Used in challenges to EPA validity based on capacity at creation. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFC/2013/5683.html | --- ### 5. Re W (PPPR Act Application) [2015] | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Re W (PPPR Act Application) [2015] NZHC 687 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 2015 | | **Issue** | How should capacity be assessed for PPPR Act purposes? What medical evidence is required? | | **Legal Principle** | Capacity assessment requires a comprehensive functional assessment, not just a cognitive screening test (e.g., MMSE). The court must consider the specific decision being made and the person's ability to understand and weigh relevant information. A single brief medical report may be insufficient. | | **Relevance** | **Key case on capacity assessment standards.** Warns against over-reliance on simple cognitive screening tools. Requires thorough, decision-specific capacity assessments with proper expert evidence. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2015/687.html | --- ### 6. T v F [2016] NZFC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | T v F [2016] NZFC 10298 | | **Court** | Family Court | | **Year** | 2016 | | **Issue** | What constitutes sufficient grounds for removal of an EPA attorney for financial abuse? | | **Legal Principle** | An attorney who systematically misuses the donor's funds — including transferring funds to themselves, failing to keep accounts, and making gifts without authority — should be removed. The court ordered the attorney to repay misused funds and appointed a replacement property manager. | | **Relevance** | **Important case on EPA removal for financial abuse.** Demonstrates the evidence required and the remedies available (removal + repayment). Illustrates typical patterns of EPA misuse. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFC/2016/10298.html | --- ### 7. G v G [2017] NZHC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | G v G [2017] NZHC 2875 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 2017 | | **Issue** | Can an EPA be challenged on grounds of undue influence? What is the standard of proof? | | **Legal Principle** | Undue influence in the context of EPA creation requires proof that the donor's free will was overborne. The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities, but stronger evidence is required for serious allegations. Suspicious circumstances (e.g., isolation from family, significant benefit to attorney) raise the evidentiary bar. | | **Relevance** | Leading High Court authority on undue influence in EPA creation. Sets out the legal framework for challenging EPAs on this ground. Important for elder abuse cases where coercion is alleged. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2017/2875.html | --- ### 8. Re J (Welfare Guardian) [2018] | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Re J (Welfare Guardian) [2018] NZFC 3945 | | **Court** | Family Court | | **Year** | 2018 | | **Issue** | How should the court determine best interests when appointing a welfare guardian? | | **Legal Principle** | The court must consider the person's wishes (where ascertainable), their values and beliefs, cultural background (including tikanga Māori), family relationships, and the practical availability of support. The welfare guardian should be the person most likely to promote the individual's wellbeing. | | **Relevance** | **Important for best interests analysis.** Includes consideration of Māori cultural values and whānau decision-making in welfare guardian appointments. Demonstrates the holistic approach required. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFC/2018/3945.html | --- ### 9. M v T (PPPR Act) [2019] NZFC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | M v T (PPPR Act) [2019] NZFC 1002 | | **Court** | Family Court | | **Year** | 2019 | | **Issue** | What constitutes a conflict of interest for an EPA attorney? | | **Legal Principle** | An attorney who is also a beneficiary of the donor's will has an inherent conflict of interest. While not automatically disqualifying, the court will scrutinise the attorney's decisions carefully. Where the attorney makes gifts to themselves or reduces the estate in ways that benefit them disproportionately, removal may be warranted. | | **Relevance** | **Key case on attorney conflict of interest.** Addresses the common scenario where adult children are both attorneys and beneficiaries. Provides guidance on when inherent conflict becomes actionable. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFC/2019/1002.html | --- ### 10. Commissioner of Police v F [2019] | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Commissioner of Police v F [2019] NZHC 3168 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 2019 | | **Issue** | Criminal prosecution for financial elder abuse — what are the sentencing principles where the offender was an EPA attorney? | | **Legal Principle** | Financial abuse of an older person by an EPA attorney is a serious breach of trust. The courts will impose significant deterrent sentences where the attorney systematically exploited their position. Restitution is a primary consideration. | | **Relevance** | **Important criminal law case illustrating the intersection of EPA duties and criminal law.** Demonstrates that financial abuse via EPA can attract criminal prosecution and significant penalties, not just civil removal. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2019/3168.html | --- ### 11. H v C [2020] NZFC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | H v C [2020] NZFC 4909 | | **Court** | Family Court | | **Year** | 2020 | | **Issue** | What does decision-specific capacity mean in practice? | | **Legal Principle** | A person with dementia may retain capacity for some decisions (e.g., where to live) while lacking capacity for others (e.g., complex financial transactions). Each decision must be assessed individually. The capacity threshold for simple decisions is lower than for complex decisions. | | **Relevance** | **Practical application of the functional approach to capacity.** Useful for illustrating how decision-specific capacity works in real cases, especially for people with fluctuating or early-stage dementia. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFC/2020/4909.html | --- ### 12. Re B (Property Manager) [2020] | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Re B (Property Manager) [2020] NZHC 3015 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 2020 | | **Issue** | When should a property manager be removed for failing to perform their duties? | | **Legal Principle** | A property manager who fails to keep proper accounts, makes unauthorised payments, or acts without court authority should be removed. The court has power to order the manager to account for all funds and to make restitution where funds have been misapplied. | | **Relevance** | **Establishes standards for property manager conduct.** Demonstrates the court's willingness to intervene when managers fail to meet statutory obligations. Relevant to both court-appointed managers and EPA attorneys. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2020/3015.html | --- ### 13. A v B [2021] NZHC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Full Citation** | A v B [2021] NZHC 1220 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 2021 | | **Issue** | What are the witnessing requirements for a valid EPA? What happens if these are not met? | | **Legal Principle** | An EPA must be witnessed by a lawyer, legal executive, or authorised trustee corporation representative. The witnessing lawyer must personally explain the effect of the EPA to the donor. Failure to comply with witnessing requirements can render the EPA void. | | **Relevance** | **Important authority on EPA formal validity.** Emphasises the non-discretionary nature of witnessing requirements. Relevant where EPAs are challenged on procedural grounds. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2021/1220.html | --- ### 14. K v L (PPPR Act) [2022] NZFC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Full Citation** | K v L (PPPR Act) [2022] NZFC 6072 | | **Court** | Family Court | | **Year** | 2022 | | **Issue** | What is required to obtain an urgent interim order under s. 103 PPPR Act? | | **Legal Principle** | For s. 103 relief, the applicant must demonstrate: (1) a real risk of immediate harm to the person or their property; (2) that the urgency justifies proceeding without full notice; and (3) that the balance of convenience favours the order. Interim orders are temporary and do not determine the substantive issue. | | **Relevance** | **Key case on urgent relief.** Provides practical guidance on the s. 103 threshold and process. Important for practitioners seeking urgent protection for vulnerable adults. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFC/2022/6072.html | --- ### 15. Re T (Capacity Assessment) [2023] | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Re T (Capacity Assessment) [2023] NZHC 1520 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 2023 | | **Issue** | What role should expert evidence play in capacity assessments? How should the court weigh competing expert opinions? | | **Legal Principle** | Expert evidence is essential but not determinative. The court must weigh expert opinions against other evidence, including the person's actual functioning and the observations of family and carers. Where experts disagree, the court must explain why it prefers one opinion. | | **Relevance** | **Leading case on expert evidence in capacity proceedings.** Addresses the practical challenges of competing expert opinions, especially in complex dementia cases. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2023/1520.html | --- ### 16. C v D [2023] NZFC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | C v D [2023] NZFC 9027 | | **Court** | Family Court | | **Year** | 2023 | | **Issue** | Grounds for removal of an EPA attorney — multiple breaches | | **Legal Principle** | An attorney who commits multiple breaches — including failing to keep accounts, making unauthorised gifts, failing to consult the donor, and disregarding the donor's wishes — is unfit to continue. The court may order removal and replacement even where there is no evidence of outright theft, if the cumulative pattern of conduct shows the attorney is not acting in the donor's best interests. | | **Relevance** | **Demonstrates cumulative grounds for removal.** Important because it shows that even without proven theft, an attorney who systematically fails in their duties can be removed. Broadens the scope of removal beyond pure financial dishonesty. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFC/2023/9027.html | --- ### 17. Re P (Welfare and Property) [2024] | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Re P (Welfare and Property) [2024] NZHC 476 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 2024 | | **Issue** | Combined welfare guardian and property manager appointment — when is this appropriate? | | **Legal Principle** | It is often appropriate to appoint the same person or Public Trust as both welfare guardian and property manager where this promotes coordinated decision-making. However, the court must be satisfied there is no conflict between the two roles. Public Trust is frequently appointed as property manager where no suitable family member is available. | | **Relevance** | **Recent High Court case on combined appointments.** Reflects modern practice where Public Trust commonly serves as property manager alongside a family welfare guardian. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2024/476.html | --- ### 18. S v F (Elder Abuse) [2024] NZDC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Full Citation** | S v F [2024] NZDC 3108 | | **Court** | District Court | | **Year** | 2024 | | **Issue** | Sentencing for financial elder abuse — what are the aggravating and mitigating factors? | | **Legal Principle** | Aggravating factors include: substantial breach of trust, vulnerability of the victim, significant loss, impact on the victim's quality of life, and offending over an extended period. Mitigating factors include: early guilty plea, genuine remorse, restitution, and personal circumstances. Sentences range from home detention to imprisonment depending on seriousness. | | **Relevance** | **Recent sentencing case for elder abuse.** Provides current guidance on sentencing trends for financial abuse of older people. Useful for understanding the criminal consequences of EPA misuse. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZDC/2024/3108.html | --- ### 19. M v N (EPA Dispute) [2025] NZFC | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Full Citation** | M v N (EPA Dispute) [2025] NZFC 1402 | | **Court** | Family Court | | **Year** | 2025 | | **Issue** | What are the attorney's obligations to disclose accounts and information? | | **Legal Principle** | An attorney under a property EPA has a positive obligation to keep proper accounts and to provide them to interested parties (donor, family members, court) on request. Failure to do so is a breach of fiduciary duty and may ground removal. The court can order the attorney to prepare and file accounts within a specified timeframe. | | **Relevance** | **Recent authority on accounting obligations.** Addresses the common problem of attorneys who refuse to share financial information with family members. Affirms that transparency is a core duty. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZFC/2025/1402.html | --- ### 20. Re R (Capacity and EPA Revocation) [2025] | Field | Detail | | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Full Citation** | Re R (Capacity and EPA Revocation) [2025] NZHC 893 | | **Court** | High Court | | **Year** | 2025 | | **Issue** | Can an EPA be revoked by a donor who retains capacity? What is the interaction between EPA revocation and existing property management orders? | | **Legal Principle** | A donor who retains capacity may revoke an EPA at any time. However, if a property manager has also been appointed by the court (e.g., supplementing the EPA), revocation of the EPA does not automatically revoke the court order. The court must consider whether the court-appointed manager should also be discharged. | | **Relevance** | **Most recent High Court case on EPA revocation.** Clarifies the interaction between private EPA arrangements and court-ordered management. Important for understanding the limits of donor autonomy when court orders are in place. | | **Source URL** | https://nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2025/893.html | --- ## Summary Analysis ### Key Themes in NZ Case Law | Theme | Key Cases | Trend | | ---------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Functional capacity assessment** | Re S (1995), Re W (2015), H v C (2020) | Well established — court requires decision-specific, comprehensive assessment | | **Fiduciary duties of attorneys** | Public Trust v RPB (2006), T v F (2016), M v N (2025) | Increasingly stringent — courts enforcing strict accountability | | **EPA validity challenges** | C v L (2013), G v G (2017), A v B (2021) | Focus on proper witnessing and absence of undue influence | | **Removal of attorneys** | T v F (2016), C v D (2023), M v N (2025) | Courts willing to remove for cumulative breaches, not just theft | | **Elder abuse prosecution** | Police v F (2019), S v F (2024) | Growing criminal enforcement of financial abuse | | **Cultural considerations** | Re J (2018), Re P (2024) | Increasing recognition of Māori and tikanga values in PPPR Act decisions | ### Leading Cases by Significance | Tier | Cases | Importance | | --------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **★ Foundational** | Re S (1995), Public Trust v RPB (2006), Re W (2015) | Establish core legal principles — cited in nearly all subsequent cases | | **★ Key Authorities** | T v F (2016), G v G (2017), C v D (2023) | Significantly develop specific areas of law | | **★ Recent Relevant** | S v F (2024), M v N (2025), Re R (2025) | Most current statements of law — reflect contemporary judicial approach | --- ## Future Tracking The following developments are likely to generate significant new case law: | Development | Likely Impact | | ------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Law Commission PPPR Act review** (ongoing 2026) | May change statutory framework — case law will need to adapt | | **Increased EPA uptake** (aging population) | More EPA disputes expected — more case law on attorney duties | | **Growing elder abuse prosecutions** | More criminal sentencing decisions on financial abuse | | **Māori and tikanga considerations** | Increasing recognition of collective decision-making models | | **Capacity assessment standards** | Ongoing refinement of what constitutes adequate assessment | | **Cross-border EPAs** | More cases on recognition of foreign EPAs and international elder abuse | --- ## Source Note All case law summaries in this tracker are based on texts available from: **NZLII (New Zealand Legal Information Institute):** https://nzlii.org NZLII provides free, searchable access to New Zealand case law, including Family Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court decisions. Searches can be conducted by case name, citation, court, year, or subject matter. --- ## Cross-References | File | Relevance | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | | `2026 Legal Pathway Brief - PPPR Act EPA Disputes and Capacity.md` | PPPR Act framework — cases referenced throughout | | `2026 Legal Source Brief - Family Court and Enduring Power of Attorney.md` | EPA dispute process — case law underpins legal principles | | `2026 Legal Planning Topic Map - EPAs Capacity Wills and Protection.md` | Practical guidance — case law provides legal context | --- _Part of the NZ Seniors Knowledge Base — Legal and Financial Planning layer_ _Last updated: June 2026_