CDM
[2010] QCAT 317
•9 July 2010
CITATION: CDM [2010] QCAT 317
PARTIES: CDM
APPLICATION NUMBERS: GAA7317-09; GAA714-10
MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters
HEARING DATES: 3 December 2009
29 January 2010
18 June 2010
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Professor A Ashman
Ms B Bayne
Ms L Johannessen
DELIVERED ON: 9 July 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:
The Tribunal orders that pursuant to s106 of the Guardianship and
Administration Act 2000 relevant information may be obtained from
CDM in the absence of other persons.
The appointment of TPJ as guardian for CDM for the following personal matters is revoked:
(a)Accommodation
(b)Health care
(c)Provision of services
(d)Legal mattes not relating to the adult’s financial or property matters.
The appointment of TPJ as administrator for CDM for managing the following financial matters:
(a)Centrelink payments
is revoked.
The administration order made by the Tribunal on 18 August 2009 is changed by appointing The Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for CDM for all financial matters.
The administrator is to provide a financial management plan to the Tribunal within four (4) months.
The Tribunal directs the administrator to provide accounts to the Tribunal when requested.
This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal.
CATCHWORDS: Review of guardianship; Review of administration; conflict; failure to mediate; outstanding needs; appropriateness of administrator
RECONSTITUTION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Pursuant to s 168 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the President changed the constitution of the Tribunal that would sit on 18 June 2010. Ms Morriss was replaced by Ms Johannessen.
REASONS FOR DECISION
HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDING
On 21 December 2000, the Supreme Court of Queensland awarded a damages amount of $500,000 ($430,000 net) to CDM as a result of a claim emanating from the injuries sustained by CDM in the motor vehicle accident and ordered The Public Trustee of Queensland appointed as administrator pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal files covering the period 2001 to 2009 indicate a long and complicated involvement of The Public Trustee of Queensland, the Adult Guardian, and various members of CDM’s family in the management of his personal and financial affairs. The files also reflect a long history of conflict between representatives of the statutory bodies and members of CDM’s family, notably TPJ and CT.
At a hearing on 18 August 2009 on applications from TPJ, the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal appointed him as administrator to manage CDM’s Centrelink payments and The Public Trustee of Queensland to manage CDM’s financial matters other than his Centrelink entitlements. Both appointments were for one year and both administrators were directed to lodge financial management plans with the Tribunal. The Tribunal also appointed TPJ as CDM’s guardian for decisions relating to accommodation, health care, the provision of services, and legal matters not relating to the adult’s financial or property matters.
The Guardianship and Administration Tribunal considered that its order of 18 August 2009 provided security for CDM’s substantive asset (then in the vicinity of $240,000) while at the same time allowed his day-to-day financial affairs to be managed by his step-father with whom he was living. In other words, the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal took the view that its appointments provided flexibility in terms of CDM’s daily and routine needs while maintaining his long-term financial security.
TPJ’s appointments as an administrator and a guardian were seen to be in CDM’s best interest and to ensure that his Centrelink pension would cover his day-to-day needs and expenses.
Submissions made to the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) indicate that considerable conflict has existed between TPJ and The Public Trustee of Queensland since the hearing on 18 August 2009.
On 6 October 2009, both administrators met with a representative of Murphy Schmidt Lawyers as intermediary for discussions and an agreement was reached in principle in regard to a number of matters including a fortnightly budget for CDM.
On 16 November 2009, TPJ requested a review of the Tribunal’s administration orders. The application was first heard in Brisbane on 3 December 2009.
On that day, the Tribunal took the view that the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal’s decision remained a sensible one in light of CDM’s age, his assets, and future needs. That the two administrators were unable to agree on the enactment of the agreement (in-principle) following the October 2009 discussions suggested that decisions made by one or both of the administrators are likely to compromise CDM’s future opportunities, financial security and independence.
The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and referred the matters raised to mediation pursuant to s 75 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
When the hearing reconvened on 29 January 2010, the parties reported to the Tribunal that mediation was unsuccessful. The Tribunal appointed the Adult Guardian under an interim order for seeking help and making representation on behalf of CDM and issued directions to the Adult Guardian, The Public Trustee of Queensland, and TPJ in regard to the preparation and submission of reports that recorded those parties’ past involvement in CDM’s life, decisions that have been made, any impediments to decision-making processes, and a plan for future decision-making should the Tribunal appoint them as guardian and/or administrator.
The Tribunal also directed the Adult Guardian to engage a third party to prepare a report in respect of CDM’s social-cultural environment including matters that might affect his future. The Tribunal again adjourned the hearing.
These reports were received by the Tribunal and the active parties, including a social-cultural assessment by a staff member of the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Legal Service. The hearing was reconvened on 18 June 2010.
Given CDM’s history, previous guardianship and administration appointments, and the interrelationship of issues relating to guardianship and administration, the Tribunal initiated a review of the appointment of TPJ as CDM’s guardian pursuant to s 29(1)(a) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, to be considered along with his requested review of the appointment of administrators.
The Tribunal must conduct a review of an appointment in accordance with s 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. Section 31(2) provides that the Tribunal must revoke its order making the appointment unless it is satisfied that it would make an appointment if a new application were to be made. Section 12 of that Act sets out the criteria for the appointment of guardians and administrators. If the Tribunal is satisfied that it would make an appointment, then s 31(3) sets out the options available to the Tribunal for appointing a guardian or administrator. The Tribunal may remove an appointee in accordance with s 31(4) and s 31(5). When considering the appropriateness of an appointee the Tribunal must have regard to considerations set out in s 15(1) of that Act.
In addition to the written material contained on the Tribunal’s file, all parties attending the hearings were given the opportunity to express their views. These views, where specifically relied on by the Tribunal, are discussed below.
Matters that the Tribunal is required to consider pursuant to sections 12, 15, and 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 are the following:
(a)Does CDM have decision-making capacity for personal/health and/or financial matters?
(b)If not, would the Tribunal appoint a guardian and/or administrator for CDM if a new application for such an appointment were to be made?
(c)If the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a need to appoint a guardian and/or administrator, are the current appointees no longer competent?
(d)If the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a need to appoint a guardian and/or administrator is another person more appropriate than a current appointee or appointees for appointment?
CAPACITY
The Tribunal considered a number of health professional reports dating from 1991 to 2007 noting that CDM sustained physical injuries in a motor vehicle accident at aged 4 years. There is no suggestion that CDM sustained any head injury, indeed, a report by psychologist WR dated 2 December 1991 reported that CDM had an intelligence quotient in the normal range.
CDM’s school attendance in the Townsville area was disrupted by hospital admission subsequent to the motor vehicle accident. It was also reported that he was subject to some level of teasing and harassment by his peers. In his mid-teenage years he attended school in the Brisbane metropolitan area and there are assertions in the documentation that he became involved in the abuse of alcohol and other substances.
Between ages 16 and 18 years, CDM’s life was profoundly unstable and involved periods of homelessness and incarceration.
In her report of 17 April 1994 psychologist FM drew attention to CDM’s low verbal ability and low performances on reading and mathematics. Psychiatrist Dr DL speculated at the conclusion of his report of 12 May 1998 that CDM might be suffering from a mental health condition in addition to the presentation of an immature personality. In a letter of 30 October 2000, Dr DL stated that CDM displayed personality difficulties, impulsiveness, and a marked lack of appreciation of monetary values. He considered that CDM’s competence to manage his financial affairs was significantly impaired.
A report by psychiatrist Dr SD, dated 7 February 2007, was completed when CDM was 24 years old and homeless. This report alleges that CDM sustained a severe acquired brain injury at aged 4 years and further raises unsubstantiated allegations of childhood sexual abuse. Dr SD is complimentary of the support provided at the time by CDM’s natural father and the progress that CDM made while living in his care. While Dr SD’s conclusions in regard to CDM’s capacity appear to be based largely on a false diagnosis, he cites as evidence of cognitive impairment CDM’s decision to leave home and face the consequential risks that such an action poses.
During the hearing on 18 June 2010, the Tribunal issued an Adult Evidence Order pursuant to s 106 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. The Tribunal spoke with CDM in the presence of an observer, the author of the social-cultural assessment report dated 11 June 2010 who took no part in the interaction between the Tribunal and CDM.
CDM spoke quietly and with reservation. The majority of his responses were of very short duration and contained minimal information. CDM was unable to explain the purpose of the hearing other than it was about his money. He indicated that he was satisfied with his current accommodation and current access to spending money. He was unable to offer thoughts about his future or any short- or long-term goals.
During hearings on 3 December 2009 and 18 June 2010, the parties present were asked to comment on CDM’s capacity to make decisions on his own behalf in personal and financial matters. All conceded that CDM can make simple decisions about his personal life and is able to make routine purchases of food and other items. TPJ and CT informed the Tribunal that, in their opinions, CDM is currently unable to live independently or take care of his own financial affairs. TPJ states that he assists CDM in daily activities and routines, has taken the lead role in securing suitable accommodation, attends to any health care needs, and has supported CDM’s dealings with the criminal justice system. TPJ also reported that he rations CDM’s allowance to $10.00 per day.
At the hearing on the 18 June 2010, it was agreed by those attending that CDM, at this time, is dependent on others for decisions in personal/health and financial matters.
On the basis of evidence presented in writing and orally during hearings on 3 December 2009, 29 January 2010, and 18 June 2010 the Tribunal finds that CDM is dependent on TPJ and CT in matters relating to his personal and financial circumstances. He is able to make decisions that related to simple, routine daily affairs but is unable to understand the nature and effects of decision about a range of more complex personal matters that include accommodation, health care, and the provision of relevant services, and matters relating to his significant financial assets. The Tribunal finds that CDM has impaired capacity for personal and financial matters.
GUARDIANSHIP
The Tribunal turned its attention firstly to the matter of guardianship.
The volume of written evidence presented to the Tribunal over several years attests to the difficult relationship that has existed, and still exists, between TPJ and CT and representatives of the Adult Guardian. These documents are on the public record and will not be detailed here.
There is only one issue before the Tribunal: whether there is a need for the appointment of a guardian.
The Tribunal has before it a copy of a social-cultural report that dealt with CDM’s social and cultural circumstances. The writer stated that he did not interview CDM alone, but together with TPJ and CT. He reinforced views expressed in the report about the importance of the family and cultural heritage and stated that he believes that the family has very supportive of CDM and his needs.
TPJ stated that, since his appointment as guardian on 18 August 2009, he had secured the present accommodation for the family in which CDM has his own private space. TPJ informed the Tribunal that he assists CDM in his activities of daily living, has supported him to obtain psychiatric treatment, attend court appearances, and facilitated contact with his Indigenous community, primarily with his mother’s relatives. He further indicated that CDM’s health care needs are being monitored and he is supported to attend medical appointments as needed. CDM mixes with friends and appears have some, albeit limited, recreational pursuits.
Both TPJ and CT commented that they considered that it is important for CDM to establish and maintain his cultural links and that this currently occurs primarily through contact with CT’s family. CT stated that it was imperative that her son establish connections with his land and gain Indigenous knowledge appropriate to his age and sex through contact with community elders. She was not encouraged by the opportunities available in Brisbane and stressed the importance of CDM’s and her future visits to their country and people in rural Queensland.
The Adult Guardian concurred with the views of CT, TPJ, and the writer of the social-cultural report about the importance of CDM’s contact with his Indigenous culture.
The Adult Guardian also made significant note of a huge improvement in CDM’s appearance and demeanour when compared to his appearance of a few years ago. She expressed the view that this must be due to the care and support he is currently receiving at home, living with his mother and step-father.
The Adult Guardian stated that it was apparent that CDM has a strong and enduring relationship with his mother and this is an important issue that must be taken into consideration about his future needs and circumstances. She also noted that it would be important in the future for CDM to live independently, but close to his cultural roots, and with an on-going relationship with his mother.
Although CDM expressed some interest in living independently when he spoke with the Tribunal, this did not appear to be a high priority for him at this time and he wished to remain living with his mother for as long as possible.
In regard to any community and educational services, activities and contact that were accessible to CDM, TPJ stated that he has considered various options, including those relevant to CDM’s culture, but these are limited in the local area.
CDM told the Tribunal that he had attended TAFE courses on literacy and numeracy. Speaking about this, albeit briefly, was one of few times during the Tribunal’s conversation with him that CDM showed any animation. During her submission, The Adult Guardian also supported CDM’s participation in additional further education and training experiences.
The Tribunal finds that CDM’s current residential circumstances are stable and that there are no outstanding health care or legal matters. The Tribunal also finds that CDM has limited access to relevant community and supports although these are not considered by himself or his family as significantly disadvantageous. TPJ appears to be in a position that enables him to support CDM without the need for a formal appointment as guardian.
The Tribunal finds that an appointment of the Adult Guardian would serve no purpose and, given the history of antagonism between TPJ and representatives of the Adult Guardian, such an appointment would be futile.
Considering s 31(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, the Tribunal must revoke its order making the appointment unless it is satisfied that it would make an appointment if a new application were to be made. The Tribunal finds that it would not make an appointment if a new application was before the Tribunal and, therefore, it revokes the appointment of TPJ as guardian for making decisions relating to accommodation, health care, the provision of services, and legal matters not relating to the adult’s financial or property matters.
ADMINISTRATION
The Tribunal then turned its attention to matters relating to the review of the administration appointments, the first issue being consideration of the need for the appointment of an administrator pursuant to s 31(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000.
For reporting convenience herein, dollar values are rounded up or down to the nearest appropriate figure.
The Public Trustee of Queensland is currently managing approximately $243,000 for CDM: $3,000 held in a cash fund, $60,000, $74,000, and $91,000 in investment products, and $14,500 in an outstanding loan to Mr Spearim (CDM’s father). The Public Trustee of Queensland is paying half of the rent for the family’s current accommodation and a living allowance to CDM. The Public Trustee is charging a fee for service, which is applied on a monthly basis.
Under the current arrangements, CDM’s budget is in deficit to the extent of approximately $22,000 per annum.
TPJ reported that CDM receives a Disability Support Pension of nearly $680 per fortnight, which includes rent assistance. CDM’s working bank account contains approximately $2,500. CDM contributes to household expenses including groceries and utility costs and is given $10 per day as spending money.
During the Tribunal’s conversation with him, CDM stated that he spends the $10 given to him each day on alcohol that is consumed with friends and that he considered this to be satisfactory. He was not able to report any details about his current financial circumstances or his future needs.
Given the quantum of CDM’s assets and his lack of appreciation for its management, the Tribunal finds that there is a need for the appointment of an administrator and under s 31(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, the Tribunal would make an appointment if the matter was being considered de novo by the Tribunal. That is, without an appointment, there is likely to be risk to CDM’s assets, his needs will not be adequately met, and his interests will not be adequately protected.
Given the existing dual appointments, the Tribunal then turned its attention to s 31(4) and s 31(5) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000.
In his application for a review of the appointment of administrators dated 16 June 2009, TPJ alleged that there is nobody in the adult’s life to assist him in making financial/legal decisions, there is conflict between decision-makers or family members, the current attorney or administrator is taking advantage of the adult financially, financial abuse is occurring, and essential services are at risk or have been disconnected. Additionally, he alleged that CDM is homeless with no options and his pension has been withdrawn.
In further written and oral evidence to the Tribunal, TPJ asserts that The Public Trustee is incompetent. In his written statement of 16 March 2010, for example, he states that The Public Trustee of Queensland obstructed and avoided requests for resources to cater for CDM’s needs and that this obstruction continued after 18 August 2009 when TPJ was appointed guardian and limited administrator for CDM. TPJ blames The Public Trustee of Queensland for CDM’s current inability to purchase a home, further asserting that CDM received $500,000 from the personal injuries award and that his assets are now only half that amount. CDM once owned an apartment on the Sunshine Coast and an unimproved property at Imbil and these were sold by The Public Trustee.
In its submissions, The Public Trustee of Queensland asserts that it has managed CDM’s affairs in an appropriate way, has responded in conciliatory ways to negotiations with CDM’s family, and has been responsive to their demands on his assets. For example, it has sought consultations with, and the cooperation of, CDM’s family in fulfilling its duties vis-à-vis policy and practice requirements as a statutory body, has continued to provide funds requested, and more recently supported CT and TPJ in apportioning CDM’s rent contribution.
In a report dated 29 March 2010, The Public Trustee of Queensland provided a statement of its management of CDM’s affairs over two periods: from its appointment by the Supreme Court of Queensland up to the time when its appointment was revoked by the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal; and again from its re-appointment by that Tribunal to the present hearing. The Public Trustee of Queensland’s document is on public record and is not summarised here. However, in that report, The Public Trustee of Queensland draws attention to the difficulties that it encountered dealing with TPJ and CT. These included a lack of cooperation to enable standard budgeting and purchase procedures to be enacted, the cancellation of meetings due to the non-attendance of the family, and an inability of staff to endure family members’ aggression.
The Tribunal undertook an overview of the financial records that indicated income and expenditure since the Supreme Court of Queensland award in 2001. A summary was distributed to the parties attending the hearing and the Tribunal then orally presented this information. The Tribunal found that all amounts were satisfactorily acquitted apart from approximately $33,600 for which there were inadequate or unavailable records relating to the period November 2002 to December 2003 when CT and WA were the appointed administrators.
The Tribunal questioned representatives of The Public Trustee of Queensland in regard to the drop in the value of total assets during 2008 and 2009. It was suggested to the Tribunal that this period coincided with the global financial crisis when the value of investments fell dramatically. It was noted that there has been a slight increase in the value of investments over the past six months.
The Tribunal can find no evidence of financial mismanagement by The Public Trustee of Queensland. The Tribunal finds that CDM’s assets have been depleted as a result of expenditure sought by family members, both by CDM’s natural father with whom CDM resided for several years, and by TPJ and CT, and by the impact of the global financial crisis.
The Tribunal finds that there is no substantive evidence to support the claim that The Public Trustee of Queensland acted incompetently in managing CDM’s financial affairs. There is no evidence of financial abuse by The Public Trustee and no essential services have been at risk by the actions of The Public Trustee of Queensland. Indeed, the Tribunal has formed the view that The Public Trustee of Queensland has acted prudently in its dealings with CDM and his family. There is no evidence presented to the Tribunal to dispute the fact that the Public Trustee has not acted in CDM’s best interest.
The Tribunal, therefore, finds that the Public Trustee of Queensland is competent to act as CDM’s administrator.
The Tribunal then considered the competency of TPJ as administrator.
TPJ has been involved in the management of CDM’s affairs since 2002. Evidence was presented to the Tribunal that he acted on behalf of CT to develop a lifestyle plan and to identify properties to purchase in accordance with that plan. CT and TPJ took up residence in the Sunshine coast apartment purchased by CDM and continued to reside there when CDM entered a period of homelessness.
The order of the Tribunal of 18 August 2009 required TPJ to provide a financial management plan to the Tribunal within two months. On 30 September 2009, TPJ emailed the Tribunal registry seeking an extension of time to present a plan for the management of CDM’s Centrelink benefits. He provided a notation that showed that all of CDM’s pension was spent on groceries and miscellaneous items and that he considered the pension to be insufficient to accommodate CDM’s day-to-day needs.
Correspondence dated 6 October 2009 from the lawyer who acted as an intermediary in a meeting between The Public Trustee of Queensland and TPJ refers to an agreement in principle between the parties. A fortnightly budget for CDM was proposed as follows: $500 for rent (subject to the amount of rent), $200 for groceries and utilities, $200 for pocket money and tobacco, $200 for incidental expenditure, and $300 for lifestyle expenses. The proposal further indicates, “…the groceries, utilities pocket money and incidental expenditure will come from the pension. The rent and lifestyle expense will have to come from funds from CDM’s estate.”
Given his current income, such a budget of $1,400 per fortnight will effectively draw down CDM’s assets. While the Tribunal recognises that CDM has significant assets, it is also appreciates that the award by the Supreme Court of Queensland was determined in consideration of CDM’s whole-of-life circumstances and that a high level, progressive, and/or persistent call on his assets is likely to leave him in a disadvantaged and dependent situation later in his life.
On 3 December 2009, TPJ confirmed that his investment strategy for CDM’s assets would be based on his conviction that the best possible method would be to have no assets left at the end of 10 years. Since that time, TPJ has amended his position. In correspondence to the Tribunal on 25 January 2010, he states that he is convinced that CDM does not have sufficient funds to buy any kind of appropriate home and that TPJ will no longer explore that possibility.
He states that from CDM’s current assets he would, over two years, secure accommodation at $26,000, purchase and maintain a motor vehicle at $15,000, allow $7,800 for lifestyle expenses, and $10,000 for accounting, legal, and therapy services, if needed. He would invest $140,000. There is no mention of CDM’s pension income. TPJ states that his proposal is more beneficial to CDM than The Public Trustee’s.
The issues relating to the contributions by The Public Trustee of Queensland to CDM’s recurrent fortnightly expenditure and to incidental and capital expenses and purchases have remained a source of significant disagreement between TPJ and The Public Trustee of Queensland. Both written and oral evidence demonstrates that TPJ remains uncompromising in his refusal to enable The Public Trustee of Queensland to act expediently in dealing with requests for the purchase of household and recreational items in accordance with its established, standard operational policies and procedures. In other words, TPJ has obstructed expedient action by the Public Trustee of Queensland. While he may not see the value in these policies and procedures, the Tribunal finds that TPJ’s refusal to respect them has led to delays in procuring what he himself has argued as being essential purchases.
The Tribunal is mindful that there has been a long history of disagreement between CT and TPJ and The Public Trustee of Queensland over a range of issues that have been the subject of extensive correspondence between those parties. The Tribunal notes that two attempts made to resolve differences have failed within the past 12 months, one undertaken privately between the parties, and the other as a result of an order of the Tribunal. It is clear that no effective relationship has existed between The Public Trustee of Queensland and TPJ since the dual appointment of administrators on 18 August 2009.
TPJ has blamed The Public Trustee of Queensland solely for CDM’s circumstances. The Tribunal finds TPJ’s accusations against The Pubic Trustee of Queensland of bias, discrimination, and lack of responsiveness to CDM’s needs are without substance. The Tribunal finds that there has been a willingness on the part of representatives of The Public Trustee of Queensland to establish a workable relationship that recognises the limitations under which a statutory body operates, and a desire to foster a cooperative alliance.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that TPJ’s reluctance to recognise the specific and limited responsibilities of each appointee has played a major part in the current impasse. It has prevented the development of a sound working relationship between the two parties to CDM’s benefit.
The Tribunal views the appointment of TPJ on 18 August 2009 as an administrator as an opportunity for TPJ to demonstrate prudent management of CDM’s Centrelink payments and his willingness to comply with s 40 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. The Tribunal finds that, under that section of the legislation, TPJ has not satisfied his responsibilities as an administrator.
The Tribunal recognises that a citizen is at liberty to question the utility or value of bureaucratic policies and procedures. In this matter, however, TPJ’s determined opposition to the application of such policies and procedures (e.g., obtaining quotes) has compromised his ability to make decisions in CDM’s best interest. This has led to a delay in The Public Trustee of Queensland’s release of funds for purchases that would be to CDM’s advantage and indeed for which TPJ has vigorously advocated.
In addition, the Tribunal has also deliberated on TPJ’s ability to comply with Tribunal requirements for lodging of financial accounts should the Tribunal appoint him as administrator. TPJ did not submit a financial management plan within the period ordered by the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal. Although he submitted various lengthy statements about financial matters, these typically contain accusations and justification for his actions and inactions but fail to comply with the Tribunal’s expectations for the provision of organised, relevant, and detailed information.
After considering all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that TPJ has acted in a way that places his own views, dispositions, and attitudes above the best interests of CDM. This is contrary to s 15(1)(c). While he argues that he adopts certain positions to advance CDM’s interests, an insightful agent would recognise that short-term compromises are required to achieve long-term goals. The Tribunal has serious concerns about TPJ’s statement made in the 3 December 2009 hearing when asked what he would do if The Public Trustee of Queensland was given a plenary appointment. He replied that he would have nothing to do with them. In following such a course of action TPJ runs the risk of continuing to place his own interests and dispositions above those of CDM.
In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that TPJ is not a competent administrator pursuant to s 15 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000.
The Tribunal, therefore, changes the appointment made by the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal of 18 August 2009 by removing TPJ as an administrator and appointing The Public Trustee of Queensland as CDM’s administrator having a plenary appointment until further order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal orders The Public Trustee of Queensland to comply with reporting provisions within the order.
0
0