Finally, we have some answers.On 24 August 2018, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered this question in depth in Re Narumon Pty Ltd  QSC 185. In a nutshell, Bowskill J held that:
Her Honour found that different treatment was necessary because executing the new binding nomination was a conflict transaction (not authorised by the deceased member). In contrast, the confirmation was merely extending the timeline for the deceased’s wishes (even though there was also a conflict for this document).
The Court’s answer in Narumon will not automatically apply in every case.This case involved an SMSF, so it was not necessary for the Court to consider the SIS provisions governing binding nominations, although Her Honour did observe that there does not appear to be any restriction in SIS that would prevent an attorney, under an enduring power of attorney, from executing a binding nomination on behalf of a member.In fact, this decision turned on the constructions of the Power of Attorney Act (Qld).Whether a valid binding nomination can be executed under a power of attorney requires considering:
Interestingly, Her Honour also found that the binding nomination was not entirely invalid even though 5% of the benefit was left to a person who was not a dependant – it was only invalid to the extent of that portion.
Sign up for informative emails and blog posts.