Testamentary capacity — mental capacity — willmaker — enduring power of attorney — Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, ss 54, 55, 93B, 94, 97, 99D, 100A & 102 — Family Protection Act 1955 — Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 — Loosley v Powell [2018] NZCA 3 — Re White (dec’d) [1951] NZLR 393 — Bishop v O’Dea (1999) 18 FRNZ 492 — Carrington v Carrington [2014] NZFLR 571. The applicant sought orders under s 102 of the Protection of Personal Property Rights Act ("PPPRA") as to whether the subject person was mentally incapable and whether he lacked testamentary capacity; and if so, that she be authorised to execute his will. The applicant sought to invoke enduring power of attorney which the subject person did not object to. For a person to lack capacity in relation to property under the PPPRA they must be found to not be wholly competent to manage their own affairs in relation to property. The subject person had a mild intellectual disability and had recently suffered a stroke. Medical evidence after the stroke was that the subject person lacked the ability to look after his personal care and welfare. The Judge found the medical evidence unhelpful as it related to mental capacity in relation to personal care and welfare rather than property. The Judge concluded that the subject person was not wholly competent to manage his own affairs in relation to his property, based on the fact that he could not retain practical overview and control over his asset base and did not have a detailed understanding of the structure and amounts. The test for testamentary incapacity is different to that of mental incapacity: to have testamentary capacity a willmaker must understand the nature of their business, know of the property they are intending to dispose of, to whom and how. Evidence from the subject person's lawyer indicated that the subject person knew the specifics of his will and why he wanted to change it and the effect of doing so. The Judge concluded that the subject person, on the balance of probabilities, had testamentary capacity for the purposes of giving instructions for and signing of the will, and, for the purposes of s 102, that he still had testamentary capacity. Judgment Date: 14 September 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *