Vickery v JJP Custodians

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Vickery and JJP Custodians. Vickery sought a declaration that an oral instruction to terminate a power of attorney was ineffective and sought an order for the return of funds that were transferred in reliance on the power of attorney. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues revolved around the validity of an oral instruction to terminate a power of attorney, the applicability of s 162 of the Conveyancing Act, and the possibility of a restitutionary claim in unjust enrichment. The court had to determine whether the authority could be terminated orally and whether the notice requirement under the statute applied to such terminations. Additionally, the court examined whether the doctrine of ostensible authority applied, specifically whether a third party dealing with the attorney was put on inquiry. Finally, the court considered whether Vickery had a cause of action in unjust enrichment against JJP Custodians.

The court found that the authority under the power of attorney could indeed be terminated orally. The notice requirement under s 162 of the Conveyancing Act was deemed not applicable to the oral termination of such a power. The court concluded that the doctrine of ostensible authority was not engaged because the third party was not put on inquiry when dealing with the attorney. Regarding the restitutionary claim, the court held that Vickery had no cause of action in unjust enrichment against JJP Custodians because the funds were applied to a supposed debt owed by Vickery to JJP Custodians. The court determined that the transfer of funds was made in reliance on the power of attorney, which was still in effect at the time of the transfer.

The final orders of the court were that Vickery's claim for a declaration that the oral termination of the power of attorney was ineffective was successful. The court ordered that the funds transferred be returned to Vickery. However, Vickery's claim for unjust enrichment against JJP Custodians was dismissed. The court's decision highlighted the importance of clear communication and written documentation in the context of powers of attorney and the potential consequences of oral instructions.