| CITATION: | BH [2012] QCAT 179 |
| PARTIES: | BH |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA7279-11 / GAA7280-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Mr L Clarkson, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 23 April 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Applications dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Jurisdiction to make compensation orders against former administrators Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, ss 32B, 59, 81(1)(d), 138AA |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The applications, in relation to the preliminary question of jurisdiction, were determined on the papers, without an oral hearing, under section 32(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BH (the applicant) brought action in the Supreme Court of Queensland for compensation for personal injuries.
In the result, the Court made orders on 13 May 2005, awarding damages (the settlement sum) to the applicant, and appointing Perpetual Trustees Queensland Limited (Perpetual Trustees) as her administrator in relation to the settlement sum.
On 19 September 2006, the then Guardianship and Administration Tribunal (the former Tribunal) removed Perpetual Trustees and instead appointed The Public Trustee of Queensland (the Public Trustee) as the applicant’s administrator. The Public Trustee’s appointment was continued by further order made on 17 September 2008.
On 31 August 2009, the former Tribunal by order declared that the applicant now has capacity for financial matters, and revoked the Public Trustee’s administration appointment.
The applicant has applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which now has jurisdiction in relation to such matters for compensation orders against her former administrators.
The Tribunal sought submissions from the parties in relation to its jurisdiction to hear the application.
The applicant submits that the Tribunal is empowered to award compensation under s 59 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. This section relevantly provides that an administrator for an adult may be ordered by the Tribunal to compensate the adult for a loss caused by the administrator’s failure to comply with the Act in the exercise of a power.
The Public Trustee submits that the Tribunal does not have such jurisdiction. The submissions are outlined as follows:
(a) The Tribunal does not have general jurisdiction, but has jurisdiction to deal with matters it is empowered to deal with under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 or an enabling Act, one of which is the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (the Act).
(b) Section 81(1)(d) of the Act refers to the functions of the Tribunal, which includes making declarations, orders or recommendations, or giving directions to certain decision-makers, including administrators.
(c) The term “administrator” is defined in Schedule 4 of the Act to mean “an administrator appointed under this Act”.
(d) Section 32B of the Act empowers the Tribunal to make directions (of a limited nature) to former administrators. That is, administrators whose appointment has been terminated – either by way of automatic revocation under s 26, or by way of an administrator withdrawing with leave under s 27, or by way of…
Continue reading BH
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- BH [2012] QCAT 179
- Case
- [2012] QCAT 179
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation of the contractual terms and whether the defendant had breached those terms. The court was required to examine the evidence presented by both parties and determine the obligations and rights of each party under the contract. The interpretation of key clauses and the implications of those interpretations were central to the court's decision.
In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the contract in question and the surrounding circumstances. It found that the plaintiff's claims were not substantiated by the evidence. The court concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract and that the plaintiff's interpretation of certain clauses was incorrect. As a result, the applications made by the plaintiff were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Applications dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.