Appointment of temporary Property Manager — Power of Attorney — property — personal care and welfare — self-dealing — Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, ss 8, 25, 30, 44, 54, 55, 99, 102 & 105 — WJT v PJT [2012] NZFC 3763. This hearing centred around the subject person, EV, and the issue of whether a temporary property manager should be appointed in light of applications for orders seeking to revoke the respondent's role as EV's attorney as to property and personal care and welfare. EV was an elderly woman who lacked capacity due to dementia. The respondent was appointed as EV's attorney in relation to both property and welfare under a Enduring Power of Attorney in 2008. Two of EV's three children (the applicants) commenced proceedings as they believed their sibling (the respondent) had been using his position as EV's attorney for his own benefit. Around 40-45 per cent of EV's estate had been distributed to the respondent. Under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (the Act), the applicants sought revocation of the respondent's appointment as attorney to both property and personal care and welfare. They wanted the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Ltd to act as attorney as to property and for themselves to act as attorney for personal care and welfare. Theyapplicants sought an investigation into the property of EV and the creation of a new will so that EV's wish that her property be distributed equally between her three children could be enacted. The Judge found on the evidence that urgency was established given factors including EV's age, the amount of time the matter had been in court, that there was an arguable case that the respondent had been self-dealing, that decisions would need to be made regarding whether EV's funds will meet her outgoings and provide proper care, recall of loans and the potential sale of EV's home, and that the principal purpose of appointing a temporary manager were met. The principal purpose of the appointment of a temporary Property Manager is to enquire into and present all of the relevant facts to the Court so that determination can be made as to whether a full enquiry is considered under s 102 or whether the position can continue with permanent orders. The Judge noted that as the appointment of a temporary manager has the effect of suspending the actions of the attorney, there was no need to determine whether the court had jurisdiction to look into the actions of the attorney and revoke the Enduring Power of Attorney. A temporary property manager was appointed so that EV's situation could be fully investigated and her welfare and best interests protected. The temporary manager was further given the power to create a replacement for EV. Judgment Date: 10 July 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *