EDJ
[2012] QCAT 377
| CITATION: | EDJ [2012] QCAT 377 |
| PARTIES: | EDJ |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA6325-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | C Endicott, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 20 August 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The application for a review of the appointment of an administrator is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATION FOR ADULTS – where hearing resulted in continuation of appointment of administrator – where request made to review that appointment within 2 months of hearing – where no new or relevant information to support a review – where no basis for a review established – early end to proceedings Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 47, 226 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
EDJ recovered significant damages by way of compensation for injuries in July 2011. The Public Trustee of Queensland was appointed as his administrator for the management of those recovered funds. His mother has been appointed by the tribunal to manage all his other financial matters.
At a hearing on 28 May 2012 the tribunal determined that The Public Trustee should continue as the administrator for the recovered funds. Mrs EDJ had attended that hearing and had taken an active part in the hearing. She had provided up to date information about her son’s financial affairs.
Just under two months after that hearing, Mrs EDJ applied for a review of the appointment of the administrators. Mrs EDJ sought in that review application to be appointed as administrator for all financial matters. As the review application contained only sparse grounds for the review, the registry staff asked Mrs EDJ to provide further information to support the requested review.
In this further information, Mrs EDJ has stated that she was not comfortable with the decision of the tribunal to continue the appointment of The Public Trustee. She stated that her son harboured a dissatisfaction with the actions of The Public Trustee, she had the ability to make decisions about the management of the funds, and her son would be happy to have her as his sole administrator.
Mrs EDJ also stated that she did not have enough time to think and understand the powers of The Public Trustee before the May hearing. She had had a big argument with her son on the weekend before the hearing over the management of his funds and how he should be allowed to use them. She stated that the arguments have become increasingly regular and savage. As a result she had self doubts and was not in the right mind set to challenge the continuation of The Public Trustee.
One of the main areas of dissatisfaction identified with The Public Trustee was the budget set for the purchase of a house for EDJ. Mrs EDJ stated that her son would not be happy if a house were to be purchased for him within the budget set by The Public Trustee as he wants to buy a house at a price of his own choosing.
It appears that Mrs EDJ has come to the stage where she is in agreement with her son on this point. No projections were provided to analyse how the longevity of the funds would be affected by purchasing a house outside the budget devised by The Public Trustee.
This information is not new. It was substantially available to and discussed by the tribunal at the hearing conducted on 28 May 2012. There are no new or changed circumstances since that hearing.
QCAT has the power in section 226 of the QCAT Act to make practice directions about the practices and procedures of the tribunal. A practice direction was made in 2010 about applications in which reviews of appointments are requested. That practice direction requires an applicant to provide new and relevant information which has become available since the hearing or to disclose any relevant change in circumstances which has occurred since the hearing.
QCAT is under section 31(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 able to conduct a review in the ways it considers appropriate. The Tribunal has determined that it may hear and dismiss on the papers an application requesting a review of appointment of a guardian and/or administrator which the Tribunal determines does not disclose the information required in the practice direction.
Mrs EDJ’s application does not provide any information of the type required by the practice direction. She is in essence relying on information that had already been considered by the tribunal when coming to the decision to continue the appointment of The Public Trustee in May 2012. If she thought the tribunal was wrong in the decision it reached, her proper remedy was to appeal that decision. She did not do so.
I consider that there being no new information provided to the tribunal, the review application should not proceed to a hearing but should be dismissed. Section 47 of the QCAT Act provides power for the tribunal to bring an early end to a proceeding if the tribunal considers the proceeding is lacking in substance or is otherwise an abuse of process.
The review application is lacking in substance. It is accordingly dismissed.
0
0
0