QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
EMC v MMH & Ors [2022] QCATA 139
PARTIES:
EMC (applicant/appellant)
v
MMH
MPB
MPA
ECJ
Public Guardian
The public trustee of queensland(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL141-22
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
G45705
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
30 August 2022
HEARING DATE:
On the Papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Acting Senior Member Fitzpatrick
ORDERS:
The application to stay a decision is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND -STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where former attorney for personal and health matters and for financial matters replaced by the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland – former attorney seeking stay of decision
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s5
Queensland Civil and Administration Act 2009 (Qld), s58
Hessey-Tenny v Jones [2018] QCATA 131
Simonova v Department of Housing and Public Works [2018] QCA 60
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
The parties have been de-identified in this decision.
The applicant EMC has filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal and an application to stay a decision with respect to a decision made by the Tribunal on 5 April 2022. The Appeal Tribunal’s decision deals with the application to stay a decision. The Appeal Tribunal makes its decision under s58 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
Pursuant to the decision dated 5 April 2022, the Public Guardian was appointed guardian for the adult ECJ for health care decisions. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in five years.
The Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee as administrator for ECJ for all financial matters. The appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal required a financial management plan and a statement of advice from a financial planner to be provided to the Tribunal within 6 months of the date of the Order.
The decision also revoked the following Enduring Powers of Attorney for ECJ:
(a)an Enduring Power of Attorney dated 13 February 2015 appointing MPB, MMH and MPA as attorneys for financial, personal and health matters; and
(b)an Enduring Power of Attorney dated 20 November 2019 appointing EMC as attorney for financial, personal and health matters.
The decision was made following a hearing with respect to three applications filed by ECJ’s daughter, MMH. The applications sought appointment of the Public Guardian, the Public Trustee and sought orders about the 20 November 2019 Enduring Power of Attorney.
The adult, ECJ is 87 years of age and resides in an aged care facility.
The Tribunal below found that, as at the date of the decision, ECJ lacked capacity for significant or complex personal, health and financial matters.
The Tribunal found that the Enduring Power of Attorney made on 13 February 2015 was valid but was extinguished by the 20 November 2019 Enduring Power of Attorney.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read EMC v MMH and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] QCATA 139
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the former attorney was entitled to a stay of the decision regarding their replacement. The court needed to determine the general principles guiding the grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings in such circumstances. The appellant argued that the decision should be stayed to allow for further investigation into the allegations against the former attorney. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the application for a stay should be dismissed, as the former attorney had not demonstrated any grounds warranting such relief.
The court considered the general principles that guide the grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings. It was held that the Public Guardian and Public Trustee is responsible for the care, welfare, and property of individuals who are unable to manage their own affairs. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that these individuals are protected and their interests are safeguarded. The appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to justify a stay of the decision, and the court found that the application should be dismissed. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the application to stay the decision was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application to stay a decision 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.