M

In the matter of M, the court was asked to decide whether E, the son of M, could act as her attorney or administrator due to a conflict of interest with his brother, G. M, who suffered from dementia, had appointed E as her enduring power of attorney, but there was a significant conflict between the brothers. The court had to determine if E could act as attorney or administrator given the conflict of interest and M's complex estate.

The court considered the legal obligations of an attorney under the Act, emphasising the fiduciary duty owed by E to M, and the potential conflict of interest arising from E's role as a beneficiary under M's will and his ongoing disputes with G. The court held that E's actions demonstrated a failure to separate his interests from M's, and it was unlikely he could act impartially given the existing conflict. The court also noted that appointing E as administrator would not resolve the conflict and could further complicate M's estate management.

Given the complexity of M's estate and the significant conflict of interest between the sons, the court decided that E could not act as M's attorney or administrator. The court appointed the Public Trustee as M's plenary administrator, recognising the need for an independent party to manage her affairs and interests.

The final order was that the Public Trustee be appointed as the plenary administrator of M's estate, with the authority to manage all aspects of her affairs, including resolving conflicts with E and G, and potentially reversing the transfer of M's interests to E.