CJP

The matter involved CJP, an 86-year-old returned serviceman, and several applicants including his friend FJ, son CS, and niece WL, who sought to be appointed as his guardian and/or administrator. The applicants raised concerns about CJP's capacity to make personal and financial decisions. The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether CJP had capacity, whether a guardian and/or administrator should be appointed, and if so, who would be the most appropriate appointees.

The Tribunal considered medical evidence and submissions from the parties. The evidence indicated CJP's cognitive functioning was impaired at times, though some doctors concluded he had capacity. However, CJP's oral evidence demonstrated he did not understand his complex personal and financial circumstances, and he was vulnerable to influence. The Tribunal found the medical evidence was not specific enough and placed greater weight on CJP's own evidence, concluding he lacked capacity.

The Tribunal found there was a need for a guardian to make decisions regarding CJP's accommodation, healthcare, and contact with others. However, none of the proposed guardians from CJP's family and friends were deemed appropriate due to conflicts of interest and poor communication. The Adult Guardian was appointed as guardian.

Regarding administration, the Tribunal found CJP's financial matters required management. While CJP had appointed attorneys, the Tribunal found they had conflicts of interest and could not effectively liaise with stakeholders. The Public Trustee of Queensland was appointed as administrator.

The Enduring Power of Attorney was overtaken and could no longer be acted upon. Orders were made appointing the Adult Guardian as guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for CJP.