Lambourne and Ors v Marrable and Ors

The case of Lambourne and Ors v Marrable and Ors involves a dispute over the validity of enduring powers of attorney and the management of a person's property and affairs. The parties to the case are the Lambourne family, who are the original attorneys under an enduring power of attorney, and the Marrable family, who are the attorneys under a subsequent enduring power of attorney. The dispute centres around the question of whether the donor had the capacity to revoke the first enduring power of attorney and appoint the Marrable family as attorneys. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were whether the donor had the capacity to make the second enduring power of attorney, whether the second enduring power of attorney was valid, and whether the first enduring power of attorney had been activated. The court was required to consider the statutory presumption of capacity, the statutory obligations of an attorney, and the medical evidence presented by the parties. The court also had to consider the legal principles governing the validity of enduring powers of attorney and the circumstances in which they may be revoked.

The court found that the donor did not have the capacity to make the second enduring power of attorney, and therefore it was invalid. The court also found that the first enduring power of attorney had not been activated, and that the Lambourne family remained the valid attorneys for the donor. The court rejected the medical evidence presented by the Marrable family, finding that it was insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity. The court held that the statutory presumption of capacity could only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, and that the evidence presented by the Marrable family did not meet this standard. The court further held that the statutory obligations of an attorney were not triggered unless and until an enduring power of attorney was activated, and that the Lambourne family had not breached any such obligations.

The court made orders that the second enduring power of attorney was invalid and of no effect, and that the Lambourne family remained the valid attorneys for the donor. The court further ordered that the parties would be heard on the appropriate form of order and on costs. The court did not make any orders regarding the costs of the proceedings.