AEB v Public Guardian

[2012] NSWADT 126

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Case Title:	AEB v Public Guardian
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2012] NSWADT 126
Hearing Date(s):	18 November 2011
Decision Date:	29 June 2012
Jurisdiction:
Before:	Mr J Millar, Judicial Member
Decision:	The decision under review is affirmed
Catchwords:	Guardianship - accommodation decision
Legislation Cited:	Guardianship Act 1987 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Cases Cited:
Texts Cited:
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	AEB (Applicant) Public Guardian (Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel:
- Solicitors:	Ms L Fisher (Applicant) C Phang for Public Guardian (Respondent)
File number(s):	113167
Publication Restriction:	Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. General Division (J Millar, Judicial Member): The General Division of the Tribunal presently has before it an Application filed 28 June 2011 for review of a decision made by the Public Guardian on 28 February 2011, which was affirmed on 4 May 2011 following an internal review, being a decision whereby the Public Guardian consented to AEB being given permanent placement at Montrose Hostel at Balmain.

   HISTORY

2. On 5 January 2010 the Guardianship Tribunal made an order that AEB be placed under guardianship and that his Guardian be the Public Guardian to have the function of determining where AEB may reside.

3. On 30 January 2011 the original Guardianship Order was varied by being continued for a further period of two years and by conferring upon the Public Guardian the functions of determining AEB's accommodation, health care, medical and dental treatment and access to services.

4. On 28 February 2011 the Public Guardian gave consent to AEB being given a permanent placement at Montrose Hostel at Balmain. The reasons for this decision are set out in document B2 of the section 58 documents provided to the Tribunal.

5. Following review of the decision on 4 May 2011, when the decision was affirmed, AEB applied to review of the decision to the Tribunal.

   APPLICANT'S CASE

6. The Tribunal spoke to AEB by telephone during the hearing. It was not easy to maintain easy communication with AEB by telephone. He was able to tell the Tribunal that he does not like the Montrose Hostel.

7. In his application for review AEB asserted that the facts and history relied upon by the Internal Review Officer of the guardianship decision were false and/or inaccurate.

   REASONS

8. At the hearing the Tribunal was assisted by Mr Nicole Lucas who attended as an advocate for AEB and by Ms Phang who appeared for the Public Guardian.

9. A discussion occurred between those present at the hearing as to the options available to AEB. The Tribunal was informed that there is no available alternative accommodation suitable for AEB and the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence before the Tribunal of any suitable accommodation. A discussion took place concerning a proposal being constructed as to alternative accommodation with the help from AEB's advocate and the Aged Care Assessment Team.

10. The discussion also made reference to an alternative approach to the matter by way of application to have the guardianship order cease as AEB is in settled accommodation and accordingly the guardianship order may no longer be required. He was educated by Ms Phang that the Public Guardian may seek an early review of the guardianship order with a view to asking the Guardianship Tribunal to not continue the order. AEB's advocate, Ms Lucas, also indicated that she would like to see the end of the guardianship order.

11. In the circumstances, there being no evidence before the Tribunal of any alternative accommodation option for AEB, the Tribunal was satisfied that the correct and preferable decision and the matter was the decision which had been made by the Public Guardian and affirmed on review, namely that AEB remain at his placement at Montrose Hostel.

12. The Tribunal indicated that this outcome should not be taken to prejudice any future change of accommodation decision or to affect any decision the Guardianship Tribunal may be asked to make concerning the review of the guardianship order with a view to having it cease. Further decisions with respect to accommodation or concerning the cessation of the guardianship order are to be made according to the evidence available at the time when the matter is under consideration.

13. Accordingly the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision under review.

    DECISION

14. The decision under review is affirmed.

    Registrar