district court logo

Steven Courteney v The Estate of William Courteney [2016] NZDC 2057

Published 06 December 2016

Common law doctrine of necessitous intervention — enduring power of attorney — Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, ss 99A and 99C — Re Rhodes v Rhodes [1886-90] All ER Rep 871 — Mollgaard v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation [1999] 3 NZLR 735. The plaintiff, who had paid for elderly care services resulting in significant improvement in the quality of life of the deceased, sought repayment of $36,869.39 plus costs. The grounds for repayment advanced were that the expenses were agreed to on the father’s behalf by a pre-existing enduring power of attorney (acting retrospectively), and also common law principles that would see the debt arising by supply of the necessities of life. The first ground relied alleged was dismissed, as there was no evidence of the enduring power of attorney consulting with the donor regarding the potential loan or creating financial records of such a transaction. Both of these aspects are required under the PPPRA (ss 99A and 99C), which governs enduring power of attorney. The plaintiff could recover the amount plus costs however under the second ground relied on, that being the provision of necessities of life. English case law, academic sources and the Roman law doctrine negotiorum gestio were discussed in relation to this cause of action, which was accepted as existing in New Zealand law in “Mollgaard” in the form of the doctrine of necessitous intervention. The plaintiff succeeded on this ground because he supplied reasonable and prudent necessaries of life to the deceased in the deceased’s interest; and, the deceased lacked the capacity to contract for those services himself; and, there was an intention to be repaid. Judgment Date: 24 March 2016.

Tags