BBI (Review of Enduring Powers) Summary

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
HOBART

BBI (REVIEW OF ENDURING GUARDIAN APPLICATION)

BBI (Review of Enduring Powers) [2017] TASGAB 18

REASONS FOR DECISION

Justin Otlowski (Chair)
Angela McKenzie (Member)
Matthew Fasnacht (Member)

Hearing 3 November 2017

Administration – continuation of Administration Order

The Public Trustee was appointed administrator of the represented person BBI by order of the Board dated 6 November 2014.
The Public Trustee has applied for a review of the existing Administration Order and is seeking an extension of its appointment for a period of three years.
The Application was heard on the 3 November 2017. Appearing at the Application were Edward Kempa on behalf of the Public Trustee and BBI.
BBI made it very clear that she did not want the Public Trustee involved with her finances and she wanted to look after her own finances.
A statement of accounts and a report was provided by the Public Trustee, it was prepared by Christine Ley and is dated 15 October 2017. In that report Ms Ley claims that BBI continues to display poor insight into the need to budget for daily living requirements and that she does not understand that she cannot spend money that she does not earn. Ms Ley was also concerned that BBI remains at risk of exploitation from other family members and in these circumstances the need for an Administration Order remains.
The Board was provided with a health care professional report dated 1 November 2017 from Ms Claire Woolley who is BBI’s treating psychologist.
In that report Ms Woolley’s states that BBI has a mild intellectual disability and a borderline personality disorder.
Ms Woolley was also of the opinion that BBI’s psychiatric disability results in her losing capacity to make decisions in time of stress making her increasingly vulnerable to dangerous decisions and undue influence. Ms Woolley was also of the opinion that BBI requires support for complex decisions even when calm and that she was unable to make reasonable decisions if under significant stress which impacts on her mental health. Ms Woolley stated that BBI needed support to budget for regular expenses. Ms Woolley stated that if an Administrator is not appointed then BBI will likely incur significant debt, engage in risky financial decisions for example gambling, and would experience increased conflict and stress.
The Board accepts the opinion of Ms Claire Woolley and is satisfied that despite BBI’s clear wishes that the Public Trustee not been appointed that she has a disability and cannot manage her finances and that she needs support to budget and manage her finances. The Board orders that the Public Trustee be appointed BBI’s Administrator for a period of three years following the expiration of the current Administration Order.

Justin Otlowski Matthew Fasnacht Angela McKenzie
Chair Member Member

23 November 2017

The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The parties involved were BBI, the appellant, and the respondent, who was not named. The dispute was regarding the continuation of an Administration Order that had been in place for over ten years. The court was asked to determine whether the order should be continued or revoked. The legal issue at hand was whether the court should continue the Administration Order, which allowed BBI to make decisions on behalf of the respondent regarding their personal and financial affairs.

The court considered the relevant legislation and case law on the matter. It was established that an Administration Order could be revoked if the person for whom the order was made was no longer incapacitated. The court also noted that the order was not indefinite and that it was subject to review. The court further found that the respondent had not been assessed for capacity in over ten years and that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondent was still incapacitated.

After considering the evidence and the law, the court found that the Administration Order should be revoked. The court held that the respondent should be assessed for capacity and that if it was found that the respondent was not incapacitated, then the Administration Order should not be continued. The court noted that the respondent had a right to be heard and that their views and wishes should be considered in any decision-making process. The court also emphasised the importance of respecting the autonomy and dignity of the respondent. The final order was that the Administration Order be revoked and that the respondent be assessed for capacity.

BBI (Review of Enduring Powers)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established