AAD v NSW Trustee and Guardian, Aae, AAF, AAG (External)

[2011] NSWADTAP 18

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

AAD v NSW Trustee and Guardian, AAE, AAF, AAG (External) [2011] NSWADTAP 18

Hearing dates:

14 April 2011

Decision date:

21 April 2011

Before:

Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President
Ms S Leal, Judicial Member
Dr B Field, Non-Judicial Member

Decision:

1. The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal to dismiss AAD's application for a financial management order is set aside.

2. The matter is remitted to be heard and decided again with the hearing of further evidence from Dr Lucas.

Catchwords:

APPEAL - question of law - inadequate reasons - failure to refer to critical inconsistent evidence

Legislation Cited:

Guardianship Act 1987
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1998
Powers of Attorney Act 2003

Cases Cited:

Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR
Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond [1986] HCA 7; (1986) 159 CLR 656
Absolon v NSW TAFE [1999] NSWCA 311
Beale v GIO (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Bar-Morecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123
K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052
S v S [2001] NSWSC 146
Re R [2000] NSWSC 886

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

AAD (Appellant)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (First Respondent)
AAE (Second Respondent)
AAF (Third Respondent)
AAG (Fourth Respondent)

Representation:

AAD (Appellant in person)
John Edmunds, Solicitor (2nd and 3rd and 4th Respondents)

File Number(s):

108012

Publication restriction:

S126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies

 Decision under appeal 

Citation:

2010/5703

Date of Decision:

2010-10-14 00:00:00

Before:

J Redfern
S Flanagan
J Fraser

File Number(s):

C/45583

reasons for decision

Introduction

1. AAD has appealed against a decision of the Guardianship Tribunal dismissing her application for a financial management order to be made in relation to the estate of her mother, AAE.

1. AAE has two daughters AAD and AAF. She lives with AAF. In 2003 she appointed each of her daughters (jointly and severally) as her enduring power of attorney. On 16 July 2010, AAE revoked the power of attorney and appointed her accountant, AAG, as her enduring power of attorney. Mr Edmunds, solicitor, acted for AAE in relation to these transactions and gave evidence in the Guardianship Tribunal proceedings. He also acted for the 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th respondents in these proceedings expressing the view that there was no breach of professional conduct in him doing so as he was not required to give evidence material to the determination before the Appeal Panel.

1. On 17 August 2010 AAD applied to the Guardianship Tribunal for a financial management order in relation to her mother and proposed that she be appointed as the financial manager. She says she made that application because of concerns about the current management of her mother's financial affairs and the fact that she had revoked the earlier appointments and made a new will in July 2010 when there was medical evidence that she lacked the capacity to do so.

1. AAD has appealed against the Guardianship Tribunal's decisions on a question of law. In addition, leave was sought for the appeal to proceed on other grounds: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ( ADT Act ), s 118B(1).

Legislative framework and Tribunal's decision

1. If the Tribunal had made a financial management order, that order would have suspended the operation of the power of attorney AAE made in July 2010: Powers of Attorney Act 2003, s 50(2). AAD did not apply separately for a review of the making of the power of attorney: Powers of Attorney Act , s 36. Nevertheless, the Tribunal acknowledged that the question of whether AAE had the capacity to revoke the power of attorney and execute a new power was relevant to the question of whether a financial management order should be made.

1. Before making a financial management order, the Guardianship Tribunal must be satisfied of three things:

(1)   the person is not capable of managing those affairs, and

(2)   there is a need for another person to manage those affairs on the person's behalf, and

(3)   it is in the person's best interests that the order be made: Guardianship Act 987, s 25G.

1. The Tribunal decided in relation to the first issue that AAE was not capable of managing her affairs. No ground of appeal challenged that finding. The Tribunal also impliedly decided that there was a need for another person to manage those affairs. No ground of appeal challenged that finding.

1. It was the third issue that was the focus of the Tribunal's consideration, that is whether it was in AAE's best interests that the order be made. A question which was relevant to that issue was whether AAE had the capacity to revoke the powers of attorney and execute a new power. The Tribunal's conclusion on that issue was that:

. . . there is evidence from AAE and Mr Edmunds that AAE understood the nature and effects of the power of attorney at the time she executed the instrument. She remains of the view that [AAG] should be her attorney.

1. The Guardianship Tribunal summarised AAE's evidence on this issue as follows:

AAE told the Tribunal that she wanted everything to stay as it was.

She was concerned because she believed [AAD] wanted to sell her house and put her into a nursing home. She felt intimidated and consulted with [a friend] who referred her to John Edmunds, a solicitor.

AAE told the Tribunal she went to see Mr Edmunds because she wanted to change her will . . .[AAG] had been her accountant for many years and she trusted him. She wanted him to be the power of attorney as he already managed her affairs.

AAE wanted to change her will as she had signed a will while she was in hospital in October 2009, which she regretted. She wanted to leave everything equally to her daughters. (Words in brackets substituted for names of people concerned.)

1. Mr Edmunds gave evidence to the Guardianship Tribunal of the circumstances in which AAE instructed him. He told the Tribunal that he explained the nature and effect of all the documents to her and formed the view that she understood the documents and had capacity to make the revocations, appointments and a new will.

Question of law?

1. AAD submitted that the Tribunal had made an error of law when it ignored the expert evidence from Dr Lucas, a clinical neuropsychological, about AAE's capacity to execute a new power of attorney in July 2010.

1. AAD was not legally represented and we understood this ground of appeal to be that the Tribunal had given inadequate reasons for its decision: in particular, that the Tribunal had failed to comply with one of the elements of a statement of reasons, that is referring to relevant evidence.

1. Subject to some exceptions which are not applicable to these proceedings, the Guardianship Tribunal has a duty to provide each party with "formal written reasons" for its decisions: Guardianship Act , s 68(1B). However, no decision of the Tribunal will be invalid because of any informality or want of form: s 68(2). Some tribunals, including the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, are bound in their reasons for decision to set out "the findings on material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based": ADT Act , s 89(5)(a). There is no equivalent provision in the Guardianship Act but common law principles are applicable. At common law, there is a judicial duty to give adequate reasons: Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 at 269-70; Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376; Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond [1986] HCA 7; (1986) 159 CLR 656. That duty applies to tribunals as well as courts: Absolon v NSW TAFE [1999] NSWCA 311 at [66].

1. In Beale v GIO (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Meagher JA expressed the duty to refer to relevant evidence when giving reasons as follows:

First, a judge should refer to relevant evidence. There is no need to refer to the relevant evidence in detail, especially in circumstances where it is clear that the evidence has been considered. However, where certain evidence is important or critical to the proper determination of the matter and it is not referred to by the trial judge, an appellate court may infer that the trial judge overlooked the evidence or failed to give consideration to it: North Sydney Council v Ligon 302 Pty Ltd (1995) 87 LGERA 435. Where conflicting evidence of a significant nature is given, the existence of both sets of evidence should be referred to.

1. This principle was expressed in a slightly different way by Samuels JA in Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 at 728:

[F]or a judge to ignore evidence critical to an issue in a case and contrary to an assertion of fact made by one party and accepted by the judge . . . may promote a sense of grievance in the adversary and create a litigant who is not only ' disappointed' but 'disturbed' . . it tends to deny both the fact and the appearance of justice having been done.

1. This does not mean that decision-makers are obliged to discuss every hopeless or peripheral point: Bar-Morecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123 at [211] to [212]. Nor does it require that a decision maker detail the way in which he or she has reasoned step by step to the conclusion: Absolon v NSW TAFE [1999] NSWCA 311 at [66].

1. The Tribunal did not make an express finding that AAE had the capacity to execute a new power of attorney in July 2010. However, it is implicit from its reference to the evidence of AAE and Mr Edmunds quoted above at [8], that it formed that view. That view was formed without any reference to critical inconsistent medical evidence that she did not have that capacity.

1. Dr Lucas examined AAE on 3 August 2010, just over two weeks after she had revoked the previous power of attorney. Dr Lucas furnished reports dated 10 August 2010 and 7 September 2010 which the Tribunal had before it. (Dr Lucas did not give oral evidence.) In those reports, Dr Lucas related a history of AAE being disoriented and forgetful when holidaying in Greece in May 2009 and of being hit by a car while a pedestrian, in October 2009 after misinterpreting traffic lights. She achieved a score of 15/30 in a MMSE (mini-mental state examination). In summary, Dr Lucas said that AAE, "demonstrates significant and fairly global cognitive deficits, with particularly severe problems relating to expressive language, verbal memory encoding and retention, and frontal executive functions." She considered that AAE had dementia with the most likely diagnosis being Alzheimer's disease.

1. After AAD was told that her mother had revoked the power of attorney and executed a new power and a new will, she asked Dr Lucas to write a second report. In that report, Dr Lucas expressed the view that, "AAE is incapable of making any high-level decisions about her financial situation or the legal matters such as power of attorney and any changes to such matters should not take place until after the guardianship and financial management hearing on 14 October 2010."

1. The Tribunal did refer to Dr Lucas' evidence when considering whether to make a guardianship order. It concluded, partially on the basis of that evidence, that AAE had a disability which impacts on her ability to make important life decisions. However, the Tribunal failed to refer to her evidence when impliedly making a finding that that AAE had the capacity to execute a new power of attorney in July 2010. Even though Dr Lucas' opinion was given a few weeks after the event, it was nevertheless critical and relevant to her capacity at the time. The Tribunal's implied finding that AAE had capacity at that time was a material finding which supported the Tribunal's ultimate finding that it was not in AAE's best interests to make a financial management order.

1. The Guardianship Tribunal's reasons were inadequate because it failed to refer to this evidence which was directly inconsistent with the evidence given by Mr Edmunds. That evidence was so critical that arrangements should have been made for Dr Lucas to give oral evidence, either in person or, alternatively, by telephone.

1. A failure to give adequate, reasons does not necessarily mean that the decision should be set aside: Absolon v NSW TAFE [1999] NSWCA 311 at [67]. However, in this case, the evidence of Dr Lucas was so relevant and so critical to the issue of capacity, that in order for justice to be both done and seen to be done, the decision should be set aside and remitted to be heard and decided again: ADT Act , s 118C(2)(b).

Appeal on merits

1. As well as appealing on a question of the law, AAD sought leave to appeal against the merits of some of the Tribunal's findings. AAD pointed to evidence which could be seen as inconsistent with evidence that the Tribunal appeared to accept. AAD also said that the Tribunal did not put sufficient weight on certain evidence that was in her favour.

1. The ADT Act does not contain any guidance as to the factors that should be taken into account in determining whether to grant leave to appeal against the merits (or factual findings). The Supreme Court has provided some guidance on this question in the cases of K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052; S v S [2001] NSWSC 146 and Re R [2000] NSWSC 886 (17 August 2000). Those cases interpret s 67 of the Guardianship Act which is the equivalent provision to s 118B of the ADT Act in relation to appeals from Tribunal decisions to the Supreme Court. In K v K , Young J observed at [10] that 'it has never been clearly decided what the circumstances are that should lead the Court to grant leave to appeal under s 67, but went on to make a number of observations on this point: see para [10]-[15].

1. In this case we have decided that the Tribunal made an error of law and have remitted the matter to be heard and decided again. Since the matter is to be heard and decided again, AAD has the opportunity to submit that certain evidence should be given more weight than the Tribunal previously gave it. In those circumstances, leave is refused for the appeal to extend to any grounds other than a question of law.

Order

(4)   The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal to dismiss AAD's application for a financial management order is set aside.

(5)   The matter is remitted to be heard and decided again with the hearing of further evidence from Dr Lucas.

**********

Decision last updated: 06 June 2011