BKD - [2013] QCAT 422

CITATION:

BKD [2013] QCAT 422

PARTIES:

BKD

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAA3788-13

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

C Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:

2 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for directions by BR is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

GUARDIANSHIP – where administrator appointed – where sale of assets being undertaken by the administrator – where proposed purchaser sought orders for the tribunal to give directions about the sale to the administrator

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 ss 81, 138

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

An administrator has been appointed since October 2008 to make financial decisions for BKD. One of the assets owned by BKD is a half share in a property usually described as the H Property. The administrator, The Public Trustee of Queensland, entered into an agreement with BR, the brother of BKD, to transfer BKD’s share in that property to BR.
BR made an application to QCAT asking the tribunal to give directions to the administrator. The power to give directions is set out in section 81 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 and is clarified in section 138 of that Act.
BR stated in his application that matters concerning the business assets of BKD had not been resolved and he sought directions for the resolution of those matters. BR had put a proposal as to how to finalise the outstanding issues to the administrator in February 2013 but finalisation had not been achieved by May 2013. QCAT was asked to make directions requiring the parties to meet to reach agreement or at least to agree on a way forward.
The Public Trustee provided some comments on the application for directions. It was confirmed that a proposal was put to the administrator in February 2013, however that proposal was responded to by the administrator on 18 April 2013. The administrator informed BR that updated valuations were required in order to calculate BKD’s interest in the assets. The administrator had engaged valuers to carry out valuations of the real property and proposed engaging other valuers to value the plant and equipment rather than rely on book values. The administrator proposed that a business broker be engaged to value the business.
The Public Trustee submitted that once those valuations had been obtained, the parties could meet to determine an appropriate sale price of BKD’s interest. BR did not agree and wanted a meeting to be held without engaging valuations of the assets to be sold. The Public Trustee submitted that if the process to obtain the valuations continued to be frustrated, then an application may be necessary to the court for the appointment of a receiver.
As the material filed at QCAT did not reveal a proper basis on which directions could be made to the administrator,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading BKD

Details

AGLC: BKD [2013] QCAT 422
Case: [2013] QCAT 422
Decision Date: 2 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved BKD, an administrator appointed to manage the affairs of an individual under guardianship. The dispute arose during the sale of assets belonging to the ward. A proposed purchaser sought orders from the tribunal, requesting directions regarding the sale process to be issued to the administrator. The court was tasked with determining whether the tribunal had the authority to issue such directions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to issue directions to an administrator appointed under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. The court considered the scope of the tribunal's powers in relation to the sale of assets by an administrator and whether the tribunal could intervene in the sale process. The court also examined the statutory framework governing the roles and responsibilities of administrators and the tribunal in such matters.

The court found that the tribunal did not have the authority to issue directions to the administrator in the sale of assets. The court held that the tribunal's powers were limited to reviewing the administrator's decisions and actions, and did not extend to issuing specific directions about the sale process. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the independence of the administrator's role and the need to respect the statutory framework governing the administration of guardianship and administration matters. Consequently, the application for directions by the proposed purchaser was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for directions by BR is 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.