A recent Straits Times article (24 April 2026), titled “Few reports of alleged misconduct involving LPAs in S’pore, but disputes expose family tensions”, highlights that while complaints involving Lasting Power of Attorney (“LPAs”) are relatively uncommon, disputes that do arise are often rooted in family disagreements rather than clear misconduct. These cases typically concern how authority is exercised and whether the donor’s intentions are being properly carried out. This points to a broader reality. LPAs do not usually fail because of abuse, but because expectations are unclear or insufficiently managed at the outset.
Against this backdrop, and as LPAs become more widely used—particularly in more customised forms—it is timely to examine the issues they present. This article considers what an LPA is, its purpose, why disputes arise, and how such risks may be mitigated through careful structuring and planning.
What is a Lasting Power of Attorney?
A Lasting Power of Attorney is a statutory instrument under Singapore’s Mental Capacity Act that allows an individual (the “Donor”) to appoint one or more persons (the “Donee(s)”) to make decisions on their behalf upon the loss of mental capacity.
The authority conferred generally extends across two domains: personal welfare—covering medical treatment and living arrangements—and property and affairs, including the management of financial assets and real property.
While many individuals adopt the standard Form 1 for its simplicity, the framework also permits the use of Form 2, which allows for bespoke provisions. Through this, donors may calibrate power, impose conditions, and introduce safeguards. The flexibility is considerable, but it demands precision. Without careful articulation, complexity may give rise to ambiguity rather than control. Hence, the drafting of Form 2 necessitates the involvement of a qualified lawyer to ensure such certainty and that the arrangements are free from ambiguity.
The Purpose of an LPA
The LPA serves several interrelated functions, each addressing a different dimension of incapacity planning.
At its most immediate level, it ensures continuity. In the absence of an LPA, there is no automatic legal authority for family members to step in. Instead, an application must be made to the Court for the appointment of a deputy (i.e a Deputyship Order needs to be issued by the Courts). This introduces delay, cost, and uncertainty—often at a time when urgent decisions must be made. The LPA avoids this disruption by pre-authorising decision-making.
More fundamentally, the LPA is an instrument of autonomy. It allows the Donor, while still possessing capacity, to determine who should act, how decisions should be exercised, and under what conditions. This includes choices that are not merely administrative, but deeply personal—such as who should make medical decisions, how financial resources should be deployed, and whether certain safeguards should apply.
Equally significant is the structural role of the LPA. It does not simply appoint a trusted individual; it defines the framework within which that trust operates. The Donor must decide whether Donees act jointly or independently, whether replacement Donees are necessary, and whether limitations should be imposed. These choices shape how authority is exercised in practice.
Finally, the LPA serves a preventive function. By clearly delineating authority and expectations, it seeks to minimise ambiguity and reduce the likelihood of disputes. However, as experience shows, this objective is only achieved where the instrument is carefully structured. A poorly considered LPA may, in fact, shift uncertainty from the absence of authority to the manner in which that authority is exercised.
What Drives LPA Disputes?
As the article highlights, LPA disputes rarely arise from misconduct in isolation. More often, they reflect structural, operational, or foundational weaknesses in the arrangement. Case law illustrates that these tensions can surface at different stages—how authority is structured, how it is exercised, and whether it was validly conferred in the first place.
The first relates to how authority is structured. In [2020] SGFC 37, two sisters were appointed as donees to act jointly and severally over their father’s affairs. While such arrangements are often adopted for flexibility, they also confer broad and independent discretion. Disputes subsequently arose over the management of the father’s business and finances, ultimately leading to litigation. The court intervened to restrict, and on appeal by one of the sister’s, ultimately removed the other sister’s authority over the father’s property and affairs. The case illustrates a recurring risk: where authority is conferred without clearly defined boundaries or accountability mechanisms, even a valid LPA may become a source of conflict.
Issues may also arise from how powers are exercised. In [2016] SGFC 98, the court addressed a deputy’s authority to invest on behalf of P, emphasising that a decision-maker is not free to replicate the individual’s personal risk appetite, but must instead act in P’s best interests—typically requiring a more prudent, preservation-focused approach. Although the case arose in the context of deputyship, the same principle applies to donees under an LPA. A donee does not simply step into the donor’s shoes; rather, they are bound by an objective standard of care. This has a practical consequence: where the donor’s intentions are not clearly articulated, the default position is for the donee to adopt a conservative approach to asset management. While legally sound, such an approach may not fully reflect the donor’s personal preferences—whether in pursuing growth-oriented strategies or supporting individuals or causes the donor cares about—thereby giving rise to potential dissatisfaction or disagreement among family members.
Finally, disputes may arise at a more fundamental level—whether the LPA was validly executed at all. In [2025] SGHCF 66, the court undertook a detailed examination of the donor’s mental capacity at the time of execution. It reaffirmed that capacity is not determined by diagnosis alone, but by a functional ability to understand, retain, use, and weigh relevant information. On the facts, the donor’s cognitive impairments were found to have compromised that process, and the LPA was declared invalid. The decision underscores that the execution of an LPA is not a procedural exercise, but a legally significant act requiring meaningful cognitive engagement.
Taken together, these cases demonstrate that disputes do not arise solely from fraud or financial mismanagement by a donee. Rather, they may stem from a broader range of issues—including how authority is structured, how it is exercised, and whether it was validly conferred in the first place—often reflecting gaps or uncertainties that were not adequately addressed at the outset.
Concluding Thoughts
The LPA remains a critical instrument in personal planning, ensuring that decisions over one’s care and assets are entrusted to chosen individuals in the event of incapacity.
However, its presence alone does not eliminate disputes. Where intentions are not clearly articulated or communicated, gaps may later give rise to disagreement. This is why, in practice, clients are often guided through practical scenarios—such as whether gifts should be allowed or how assets should be managed—to ensure that their intentions are properly documented.
From a regulatory standpoint, the Office of the Public Guardian takes complaints seriously and may investigate, facilitate conciliation, or apply to court to suspend or revoke a donee’s authority. While such cases remain relatively rare, they highlight an important point: many disputes can be avoided with clearer communication at the outset.
Donors should therefore consider not only whom they appoint, but also how those decisions are conveyed—both to the appointed donees and to those who may be affected by them.
How can SMTP Help
At Sim Mong Teck & Partners (SMTP), LPA planning is approached with discipline and structure as part of a broader legacy strategy. Each engagement for legacy planning always begins with a structured Wealth and Legacy Screening, allowing us to identify potential areas of risk and align the LPA with the client’s objectives and family dynamics. This ensures that the instrument is not prepared in isolation, but as part of an integrated framework.
Our team stands ready to assist individuals and families who wish to approach their legacy planning with clarity and foresight. Should you or your clients require guidance on the execution or review of an LPA — or assistance in related trust or real estate matters — our Business Development Team would be pleased to arrange a consultation. We look forward to working with you.
The content of this publication is owned by Sim Mong Teck & Partners and is protected by applicable laws, including but not limited to copyright laws, in Singapore where Sim Mong Teck & Partners operates, as well as internationally through treaties. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, or broadcast (including any electronic storage, whether temporary or otherwise, for any purpose beyond what is expressly permitted) without prior written consent from Sim Mong Teck & Partners.
Please be aware that while we have taken care to ensure the information in this publication is accurate and up to date at the time of writing, it is intended solely as a general overview and not as legal advice. This publication should not replace specific professional advice, as the details may not align with your unique business or operational needs. We recommend seeking tailored legal advice for your situation. Additionally, the information provided does not establish any legally binding or other professional relationship.
