In July this year, the Law Reform Commission (LRC) published a consultation paper seeking the public’s views on proposals to extend the existing restricted scope of an enduring power of attorney, which at present can only apply to decisions about the donor’s property and financial affairs, to include decisions as to the donor’s personal care.

Background

A conventional power of attorney can only be made by a person who is mentally competent, and it lapses if the donor subsequently becomes mentally incompetent. It may be in just such circumstances, however, that the donor of the power would want his attorney to be able to act for him. In 1997, the Enduring Powers of Attorney Ordinance (Cap 501) was enacted to meet that difficulty. That ordinance allows a special type of power of attorney, called an ‘enduring power of attorney’ (EPA), to be executed while the donor of the power is mentally capable which continues to have effect after he becomes incapable.

The benefits of such an instrument to the donor and his family are obvious. It allows an individual to choose the person or persons who will look after his affairs if he becomes incapable of doing so; it avoids expensive and potentially distressing court proceedings for the appointment of a trustee; and it provides an efficient and cost-effective way of administering the donor’s property.

Unfortunately, the use of EPAs is extremely rare in Hong Kong. As at 26 August 2009, a total of only 33 EPAs had been registered in Hong Kong since the enactment of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Ordinance, with just five registered in 2008. That is in contrast to England and Wales, where many thousands are registered each year.

Concern at the low take-up rate prompted an earlier review of the EPA provisions by the LRC which recommended that the existing execution requirements should be simplified. A bill to implement those changes is currently being drafted by the Department of Justice. In consulting on its proposals to simplify the execution requirements for an EPA, the LRC also sought views on whether the scope of an EPA should be extended to allow the donor to delegate to his attorney decisions about the donor’s personal care. The majority of those who responded agreed that consideration should be given to such an extension and the present consultation paper is the result.

The consultation paper’s proposals

Extending the scope of EPAs
In a number of other jurisdictions the scope of an EPA is much less restricted than in Hong Kong and a donor can delegate to his EPA attorney personal care decisions on matters such as where he should live (and with whom), his daily dress and diet and his day-today health care. The LRC proposes that a similar approach should be adopted in Hong Kong and that the scope of an EPA should be extended to include decisions as to the donor’s personal care. The LRC intends that ‘personal care’ for these purposes should include everyday decisions as to the donor’s health care, but not decisions involving the giving or refusing of life-sustaining treatment.

The LRC recommends that the personal care decisions which an attorney may make under an EPA should include:

(a) where the donor lives;
(b) who the donor lives with;
(c) whether the donor works and, if he does so, where and how the donor works;
(d) what education or training the donor gets;
(e) whether the donor applies for a licence or permit;
(f ) the donor’s daily dress and diet;
(g) whether to consent to a forensic examination of the donor;
(h) whether the donor will go on holiday and where; and
(i) legal matters relating to the donor’s personal care.

At the same time, the LRC proposes that the following decisions should be statutorily excluded from the scope of an EPA:
(a) making, varying or revoking the donor’s will;
(b) making an EPA for the donor;
(c) exercising the donor’s right to vote in an election or referendum;
(d) consenting to the adoption of a child of the donor who is under 18;
(e) consenting to the marriage of the donor;
(f ) removal of non-regenerative tissue from the donor while alive for donation to someone else;
(g) sterilisation of the donor if the donor is, or is reasonably likely to be, fertile.

Ensuring the attorney acts in the donor’s best interests
Section 12(1) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Ordinance (Cap 501) provides that an EPA attorney’s duties towards a donor are ‘of a fiduciary nature’. The meaning of that term may not be readily apparent to a layman and the consultation paper points out that the legislation in a number of other jurisdictions has included guidelines as to the standards which should be applied by EPA attorneys. Taking a lead from these examples, the LRC therefore proposes that there should be a statutory duty imposed on an EPA attorney to act in the donor’s best interests. In determining the donor’s best interests, the attorney should be required to have regard so far as practicable to the donor’s wishes and feelings, to the extent that these are ascertainable. If practicable and appropriate, the attorney should be required to consult any person named by the donor as a person to be consulted on matters arising from the EPA and any person caring for the donor or interested in his welfare.

Supervisory powers
The LRC’s consultation paper puts forward other measures to protect the donor’s interests. The paper explains that the existing provisions in Cap 501 provide the court with some supervisory powers over an EPA attorney but there are no explicit powers to, for instance, direct an attorney to do (or not do) a specified act, to appoint a substitute attorney or to give directions as to the remuneration or expenses of the attorney, nor is there a general discretionary power to make such orders as the supervisory body thinks fit. That is in sharp contrast to the supervisory powers available in other jurisdictions, and the LRC therefore proposes that the existing powers of the court in Hong Kong in relation to EPAs should be extended and that some powers of supervision should be given to the Guardianship Board.

Recognition of overseas EPAs
A solicitor who responded to the LRC’s previous consultation paper on EPAs referred to the difficulty which can arise in some circumstances because an EPA executed overseas is not recognised in Hong Kong. To avoid these problems, the LRC recommends that an EPA made in a jurisdiction other than Hong Kong should be recognised in Hong Kong if:
(a) it complies with the Hong Kong execution requirements (though witnessed by a solicitor/doctor registered in the other jurisdiction, rather than Hong Kong); or
(b) it complies with the EPA requirements of that jurisdiction.

Consultation

The consultation paper contains a list of questions on which the public’s views are sought but the LRC would welcome views generally on the issues raised in the paper. Although the consultation period was officially due to end on 30 September 2009, it is not too late to submit your views. You can obtain a copy of the consultation paper from the LRC Secretariat at 20/F Harcourt House, 39 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong, or you can access the paper on the LRC’s website at www.hkreform.gov.hk.

Stuart MI Stoker
Secretary
Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong

持久授權書：對個人照顧事宜的規定
施道加詳細闡述了法律改革委員會提出的最新建議，並邀請法律界對此發表意見。

法律改革委員會（法改會）於今年7月發表諮詢文件，就擴闊持久授權書的現有適用範圍（目前只可適用於涉及授權人的財產及財政事務的決定），以涵蓋涉及授權人個人照顧事宜的決定，徵詢公眾對有關建議的意見。

背景

習用的授權書只可由精神上有能力行事的人訂立，而假若授權人日後變為精神上無能力行事，此類授權書即告失效，但授權人也許正需要在此情況下讓受權人可以代自己行事。《持久授權書條例》（第501章）於1997年制定，便是為了解決上述問題。該條例容許訂立一種稱為「持久授權書」的特別授權書。這種授權書是授權人在精神上有能力行事之時
簽立，但在授權人變為精神上無能力行事之後仍會繼續生效。

這種授權書對授權人及其家人的好處很明顯。它容許個人選擇如果自己變為精神上無能力行事誰人可以打理他的事務；它可以避免為委任受託人而進行昂貴且或會令人煩惱的法庭程序；它還可以提供一種有效率兼具成本效益的方法來管理授權人的財產。

可惜的是持久授權書在香港甚少有人使用。自《持久授權書條例》制定以來，截至2009年8月26日為止，香港合共只有33份持久授權書註冊，而以 2008年來說，更只有5份持久授權書註冊。英格蘭與威爾斯的情況卻迥然不同，每年均有成千上萬的持久授權書註冊。持久授權書在香港的註冊率偏低，令人感到關注。有見及此，法改會早前曾就涉及持久授權書的條文進行檢討，並建議現有的簽立規定應予簡化。律政司現正草擬條例草案，以落實該等改革建議。

法改會在就簡化簽立規定的建議進行諮詢期間，亦同時就應否擴闊持久授權書的適用範圍，容許授權人將涉及個人照顧事宜的決定轉授予受權人代為作出，徵詢公眾的意見。大部分回應者均贊成考慮以此方式擴闊持久授權書的適用範圍，而這份《持久授權書：個人照顧事宜》諮詢文件便是諮詢所得的成果。

諮詢文件所提出的建議

擴闊持久授權書的適用範圍
在多個其他司法管轄區中，持久授權書的適用範圍要比香港寬鬆得多。授權人可將涉及某些個人照顧事宜的決定，例如授權人應居於何處（及應與誰同住）、授權人的日常衣著和膳食，以及日常健康護理，轉授予其持久授權書受權人代為作出。法改會建議香港採用類似做法，擴闊持久授權書的適用範圍以涵蓋涉及授權人個人照顧事宜的決定。法改會的意思是，「個人照顧事宜」就此而言，應包括與授權人的健康護理有關的日常決定，但不包括涉及給予或拒絕接受維持生命治療的決定。法改會建議，受權人可根據持久授權書作出的個人照顧事宜決定應包括：

(a) 授權人居於何處：
(b) 授權人與誰同住；
(c) 授權人是否就業，如授權人就業，則於何處就
業及就業情況如何；
(d) 授權人接受甚麼教育或訓練；
(e) 授權人是否申請牌照或許可證；
(f) 授權人的日常衣著和膳食；
(g) 是否同意讓授權人接受法醫學的檢驗；
(h) 授權人會否出門度假和會前往何處度假；及
(i) 與授權人的個人照顧有關的法律事宜。

法改會同時建議以法例條文，把以下各項決定摒除於持久授權書的適用範圍之外：

(a) 代授權人訂立遺囑，或更改或撤銷授權人的遺囑；
(b) 代授權人訂立持久授權書；
(c) 行使授權人在選舉或全民投票中投票的權利；
(d) 同意讓別人領養授權人未滿18歲的子女；
(e) 同意讓授權人結婚；
(f) 於授權人在生時移去其身體的非再生組織以捐贈他人；
(g) 為屬於或按理相當有可能屬於多產的授權人進行絕育手術。

確保受權人會以符合授權人的最佳利益的方式行事《持久授權書條例》（第501章）第12(1)條訂明，持久授權書受權人對授權人負有的責任「屬受信性質」。該詞的涵義，對門外漢來說未必顯而易見。諮詢文件指出，有多個其他司法管轄區的法例，已為持久授權書受權人所應採用的準則訂明指引。這些實例具有先導作用，促使法改會建議向持久授權書受權人施加法定責任，規定他必須以符合授權人的最佳利益的方式行事。在決定甚麼是授權人的最佳利益時，應規定受權人在切實可行的範圍內須顧及授權人的意願和感受，但該等意願和感受應是可予確定的。如屬切實可行和適當，也應規定受權人須諮詢授權人指明須就持久授權書所引致的事宜諮詢其意見的人的意見，並且須諮詢負責照顧授權人或關注其福利的人的意見。

監管權力
法改會的諮詢文件建議採用多項其他措施，以保障授權人的利益。諮詢文件解釋，第501章的現有條文，賦予法庭一些監管持久授權書受權人的權力，但法庭未獲賦予某些明示的權力，例如指示受權人作出（或不作出）某項指明的行為、委任替代受權人或就受權人的酬金或開支作出指示，也沒有一般的酌情權力作出監管機構認為合適的命令。反觀其他司法管轄區，卻可以行使多項監管權力，與香港的情況成強烈對比。法改會故此建議擴闊香港法庭現時就持久授權書所具有的權力，並賦予監護委員會部分監管權力。

承認海外訂立的持久授權書
一名律師曾就法改會早前所發表的《持久授權書諮詢文件》作出回應，提及海外訂立的持久授權書在香港不獲承認，在某些情況下可能會產生問題。為免出現這些問題，法改會建議在香港以外的司法管轄區訂立的持久授權書，如屬以下情況便應在香港獲得承認：
(a) 符合香港的簽立規定（雖然是由在其他司法管 轄區而非香港註冊的律師／醫生見證）；或
(b) 符合該司法管轄區的持久授權書簽立規定。

諮詢工作
諮詢文件列出多項問題以徵詢公眾的意見，但法改會也歡迎公眾就諮詢文件所提出的各個議題發表一般意見。

雖然諮詢期正式於2009年9月30日結束，但此刻提出意見仍為時未晚。諮詢文件的文本可於香港灣仔告士打道39號夏慤大厦20樓法改會秘書處索取，亦可於法改會的網站查閱，網址是www.hkreform.gov.hk。

香港法律改革委員會秘書
施道嘉