FXM (Review of Guardianship and Administration)

CITATION:	FXM (Review of Guardianship and Administration) [2021] TASGAB 7
HEARING DATE(S):	11 February 2021
DATE OF ORDERS:	11 February 2021
DATE OF STATEMENT OF REASONS:	15 March 2021
BOARD:	Mr A Mihal, Member Mrs A Jordan, Member Ms A Gott, Member
APPLICATION:	Application to Review Guardianship Order and Administration Order
CATCHWORDS:	Statutory review of guardianship and administration – no need for appointment of guardian – suitability of administrator for appointment – non-compliance with duties of private administrator – gifting without authority – intermingling of funds – conflict of interest – insufficient experience to administer estate – medical treatment or chemical restraint.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas) ss 6, 20, 39, 51, 54, 57, 67, 68, Quality of Care Principles 2014 (Cth), Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) s96, Trustee Act 1898 s7
CASES CITED:	J v Guardianship and Administration Board and anor [2019] TASSC 15, Barker v Guardianship and Administration Board [2019] TASSC 8
PUBLICATION RESTRICTION:	This decision has been anonymised for the purposes of publication.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

Background

By an Application dated 27 January 2021, Mrs DXQ applied for a review of an Order under which she was appointed as guardian for her mother, Mrs FXM, and an Order under which she was appointed as Administrator for Mrs FXM.
Mrs DXQ’s powers under the Guardianship Order were limited to decisions concerning where Mrs FXM is to live either permanently or temporarily, and any health care and treatment that is in the best interests of Mrs FXM and to refuse or withdraw consent to any such health care or treatment.
Both Orders were made on 8 March 2018 and were to remain in effect until 7 March 2021. Mrs DXQ sought the further continuation of the Orders.
As to guardianship, the Guardianship and Administration Board (‘the Board’) found that the requirements of section 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Guardianship and Administration Act1995(‘the Act’) were still satisfied. The Board could not, however, be satisfied that Mrs FXM was in need of a guardian as required by section 20(1)(c) of the Act and that the continuation of the Guardianship Order was inconsistent with the principles of section 6 of the Act. Accordingly, the Board revoked the Guardianship Order.
As to administration, the Board found that the requirements of section 51 of the Act were still satisfied in relation to Mrs FXM and that the continuation of an Administration Order was consistent with the principles of section 6 of the Act.
The Board was not satisfied that Mrs DXQ met any of the eligibility requirements set out in section 54(1)(d) of the Act and she was therefore not suitable to be reappointed as Administrator.
The Public Trustee (Tas), who was not represented at the hearing, was appointed as Administrator in place of Mrs DXQ with effect until 18 February 2022.
Mrs DXQ requested a Statement of Reasons. The Board received the request on 24 February 2021.

Hearing

The Board heard the Application on 19 February 2021. Mrs DXQ attended the hearing by telephone, as did her husband Mr KXQ, who Mrs DXQ introduced as her mother’s ‘administrator’.
Mrs FXM did not attend the hearing. The evidence before the Board from Dr Klonaris was that Mrs FXM has severe intellectual disability due to having dementia and no ability to understand the proceedings. There was no evidence as to Mrs FXM’s wishes.
The Board took into account the following documents, which were before the Board at the hearing:
a.the Administration Order dated 8 March 2018;
b.the Guardianship Order dated 8 March 2018;
c.Mrs DXQ’s written Application dated 27 January 2021;
d.a Health Care Professional Report prepared by Dr Dimitrios Klonaris dated 28 January 2021 (‘HCPR’);
e.a Private Guardian’s Report made by Mrs DXQ dated 27 January
2021, and
f.an Administrator’s Annual Report for the period 22 January 2020 to 21 January 2021 made by Mrs DXQ dated 29 January 2021.

Legislation

Section 67 of the Act provides for hearings to review Orders on application by, or on behalf of a represented person or any other person.
Section 68 of the Act provides for the making of an Order as follows:
(1)On a review under section 67, the Board may vary or continue a guardianship order or administration order subject to any conditions or requirements it considers necessary or the Board may revoke the order.
(2)The Board may make such further orders as it considers necessary in order to give effect to an order made under subsection (1).
In exercising the powers on a review, the Board must observe the principles in section 6 of the Act, which are:
A function or power conferred, or duty imposed, by this Act is to be performed so that –
(a)the means which is the least restrictive of the proposed represented person's freedom of decision and action as is possible in the circumstances is adopted;
(b)the best interests of the proposed represented person are promoted; and
(c)the wishes of the proposed represented person are, if possible, carried into effect.
On a review of an order appointing a guardian or an administrator, the Board must consider if the legislative requirements for making the relevant appointment can still be met.
In order to appoint a guardian, the Board must observe the principles in section 6 of the Act and needs to be satisfied, in accordance with section 20(1) of the Act, that the proposed represented person, in this case Mrs FXM:
(a)     is a person with a disability;
(b)is unable by reason of the disability to make reasonable judgements in   respect of all or any matters relating to her person or circumstances,
and
(c)     is in need of a guardian.
In J v Guardianship and Administration Board and anor [2019] TASSC 15 at [81], Wood J held that:
…the terms of s 20(1)(c) require a present necessity, not merely a contingency that may or may not eventuate in the future, refer: Re M & R v Guardianship & Admin Board (1998) 2 VAR 213; Public Trustee v Blackwood (above) per Underwood J at 265-266; Barker v Guardianship and Administration Board [2019] TASSC 8 per Geason J at [16], [21].
Her Honour cited with approval, Barker v Guardianship and Administration Board (above) per Geason J at [16]: ‘I do not consider that the Act authorises the making of orders against mere possibilities. Further, such approach is offensive to the principle which requires the lightest touch: s 6 and s 20.’
In order to appoint an administrator, the Board must again observe the principles in section 6 of the Act, and needs to be satisfied, in accordance with section 51 of the Act, that the proposed represented person, in this case Mrs FXM:
(a)     is a person with a disability;
(b)is unable by reason of the disability to make reasonable judgements in   respect of all or any matters relating to all of part of her estate, and
(c)     is in need of an administrator of her estate.
Section 54 of the Act sets out who may be appointed as an administrator as follows:
(1) The Board may appoint as an administrator of the estate of a proposed   represented person –
(a)    The Public Trustee; or
(b)    the Public Guardian; or
(c)    a trustee company within the meaning of the Trustee Companies Act 1953; or
(d)    any other person, including the guardian of the proposed represented person, who consents to act as administrator if the Board is satisfied that –
(i)     the person will act in the best interests of the proposed represented person; and
(ii)    the person is not in a position where his or her interests conflict or may conflict with the interests of the proposed represented person; and
(iii)   the person is a suitable person to act as the administrator of the estate of the proposed represented person; and
(iv)   the person has sufficient expertise to administer the estate.
(2) In determining whether a person is suitable to act as the administrator of the estate of a proposed represented person, the Board must take into account –
(a)    the wishes of the proposed represented person, so far as they can be ascertained; and
(b)    the compatibility of the person proposed as administrator with the proposed represented person and with his or her guardian, if any.

Evidence of Disability and Incapacity

The opinion expressed in the HCPR was as follows. Mrs FXM has a severe intellectual disability as a result of having dementia, which has been evident since 2016 and is static. By reason of the disability, Mrs FXM has deficits in orientation to person, place or time, expressive communication, receptive communication, planning and reasoning skills and impulse control. The disability affects Mrs FXM’s capacity to make reasonable judgements about day to day financial requirements, complex legal and financial decisions, legal matters, where to live, medical treatment and healthcare, and what support services she should access.
The HCPR writer relied on reports from specialists Assoc. Professor Robin Wallace, Dr Ingrid McCaughey and Dr David Dunbabin in forming the opinion as to Mrs FXM’s capacity. Mr KXQ said the abovementioned specialists were the doctors who attended on Mrs FXM in Calvary St John’s Hospital and who diagnosed her has having dementia when her capacity deteriorated after having a back operation. Those reports were not before the Board.
Mrs DXQ agreed with the opinion expressed in the HCPR. Her evidence was that Mrs FXM was admitted to [the nursing home in Hobart] in October 2016 and she has ‘basically been the same’ since then. Mrs DXQ said she can have a conversation with her mother but she is very forgetful. Mrs FXM still talks about her grandchildren and remembers all immediate family but has forgotten that Mrs DXQ’s father has passed away.

Evidence of Need for a Guardian

Mrs DXQ provided a written Private Guardian’s Report in the usual form required by the Board. The Report discloses that since the Guardianship Order has been in force, Mrs DXQ has not made any decisions about Mrs FXM’s accommodation because Mrs FXM was already living in residential aged care at [the nursing home in Hobart] before the Order was made and has continued to live there, and no current decisions about Mrs FXM’s accommodation need to be made. In her oral evidence, Mrs DXQ could not identify any specific decision that needed to be made in connection with that accommodation and said that Mrs FXM was ‘pretty settled’ at [the nursing home in Hobart].
The Report discloses that Mrs DXQ has used the health care power in the Guardianship Order by consenting to medical treatment for Mrs FXM, although where prompted to do so by the form, Mrs DXQ did not provide any detail about those decisions. The Report does provide that there are no current decisions about Mrs FXM’s health care that need to be made.
In her oral evidence, Mrs DXQ said that she ‘just remembered’ that ‘every three months they call me to sign forms for a chemical restraint.’ She said Mrs FXM ‘gets very agitated and if she gets agitated she throws her arms and legs everywhere and she has even scratched one of the carers and I have to go in and fill a form in for her to calm down every three months… also she becomes very teary in the evenings and can’t sleep.’ She said she has had to sign those forms since the Royal Commission into Aged Care.

Evidence as to Mrs FXM’ Estate and its Management

The written Application discloses that Mrs FXM was in receipt of the aged pension in the amount of $471.80 per fortnight, rent from her property in [the suburb of Hobart] in the sum of $1,500.00 per fortnight, some interest on her savings and share dividends. Her expenses amount to only $1,216.00 per fortnight.
The Application discloses that Mrs FXM’s estate consisted of shares in travel related companies Flight Centre, Qantas, the Star Entertainment Group and Webjet, together with some shares in a pharmaceutical company called Immuron. As at 21 January 2021, the shares were valued at just under $99,000.00. She had cash at bank of about $71,000.00 and a tenanted property in [the suburb of Hobart]. The oral evidence was that the property had been Mrs FXM’s home together with her late husband before they entered residential aged care.
Mrs DXQ provided an Administrator’s Annual Report for the period 22 January 2020 to 21 January 2021, which was verified by statutory declaration. The Report discloses that Mrs FXM’s home was valued at $640,000.00, and in the reporting period she received $18,000.00 of rental income from the home together with $13,643.00 from Centrelink and some share dividends.
The Report discloses a further asset which formed part of the estate was a Refundable Accommodation Bond paid to Respect Aged Care in the sum of around $227,000.00. The total value of the estate was in excess of one million dollars.
Under a section headed ‘further comments or explanations’, the following was written:
As interest rates fell in 2019 I invested $60,000.00 in bank shares but by late March 2020 they fell to <$38,000. I got all losses back by investing heavily in Afterpay and now have switched to travel stocks and raised total stake to $90,000 (worth $98,615.43 on 21/1/21). I plan to return the $30,000 to cash in bank by 30/6/21 & then switch most of the remainder to dividend yielding stocks.
The Report discloses that Mrs DXQ gave $4,000.00 of Mrs FXM’s estate towards Mrs DXQ’s daughter’s house renovations. When asked about the unauthorised gift, Mrs DXQ responded as follows:
It’s a four thousand dollar gift. My daughter is married and they were renovating their house. It was basically to help with the renovation of their bathroom. My parents always gave money to the children when they finished matric; finished uni. They even gave them money for their first car. It is what my mother and father would have wanted. They would have accepted a donation for their renovation. When I was first appointed as guardian, I remember the administrator saying you can give a gift if you have a receipt. Even a box of chocolates, you can give as our mother to your children as long as you keep a receipt. I know my mother, if she was in her right mind, she would have accepted a gift to the children.
By ‘the administrator’, the Board takes it that Mrs DXQ meant her husband, Mr KXQ because before the hearing commenced, she introduced herself to the Board as her mother’s guardian and Mr KXQ as her mother’s ‘administrator’.
Mrs DXQ said she has two adult children, and the daughter who received the unauthorised gift was 31 years old.
The Board provides private administrators with an extensive document called ‘A Handbook for Private Administrators’, which includes details of an administrator’s powers and responsibilities. It also provides a one page document called ‘Acknowledgement of Responsibilities as Administrator’ which the Board asks the administrator to sign and return to acknowledge and accept certain matters including that the administrator must at all times exercise the powers and duties in section 57 of the Act in the best interests of the represented person.
When the Board asked Mrs DXQ if she had received a copy of the Handbook, Mr KXQ answered for her in the affirmative. The Board directed the question again to Mrs DXQ who said, ‘I do remember. I don’t remember which dates… we have got some documents here…’ Mr KXQ then said, ‘it’s the orange one’ and Mrs DXQ repeated, ‘yes, it’s the orange one’.
When asked if she had read the Handbook, Mrs DXQ said, ‘no, to tell you the truth.’
When asked about whether she recalled signing the Acknowledgement, Mrs
KXQ said, ‘I did a lot of signing… but I don’t recall, you know, that particular document.’
The Board pointed out that had Mrs DXQ read the Handbook, she would have known that she had a duty to only use her mother’s money for her mother’s benefit and not make unauthorised gifts. When asked why the Board should not direct her to repay the funds to her mother’s estate, Mrs DXQ said that would not be fair because the gift is what her parents would have wanted. She confirmed that the funds had not been repaid to her mother.
Mrs FXM had over a million dollars of assets and was in receipt of the aged pension. Mrs DXQ was asked to explain the assets test for the aged pension and how it works, and why Mrs FXM was entitled to receive the amount of pension she does with the value of assets that she has. After prompting from Mr KXQ, Mrs DXQ said, ‘the Centrelink rules, my understanding? Not one hundred percent because they are very convoluted.’
When asked if she had satisfied herself that her mother was entitled to receive the aged pension when she has over a million dollars’ worth of assets, Mrs DXQ did not answer the question but asserted, ‘well, yes, she would be entitled to the pension.’
When asked if she knew what the Centrelink assets test was, she said:
Can you speak to my husband because he is more the accountant side of her information... I rely on his advice. We do talk together about the assets and everything but because he knows a bit about the law and studied the law, I rely on him.
Mr KXQ was then asked about the Centrelink assets test. He could not explain it either. He gave an explanation as to how Centrelink had calculated Mrs FXM’s assets and the amount of pension to which she was entitled, but could not say what the assets test actually was and whether Mrs FXM was in actual fact entitled to receive the aged pension.
Mr KXQ said:
the assets test now is…it was all reset by Centrelink… in early January on the two year anniversary of [Mrs FXM’ husband’s] death last year. We had to fill in all of the new forms… we put all the assets in… but stuff didn’t go through and they told us that the pension was cut off for Mrs FXM… now the assets test apparently at that time… they don’t count the accommodation bond… as an asset, they only count the house. The house they used their own amount. They asked me… to estimate the value of the house... I said, $570,000.00. After doing that, they made her pension something like three hundred and something dollars per fortnight… however… they determined that the house was only worth $540,000.00.
They reduced the value themselves. …also those shares that were bought in Mrs DXQ’s name, as you can see, on the front page it shows the NAB trade account for Mrs FXM, right, it shows Mrs FXM has… $70,000.00 in cash and $98,000.00 in shares, however the NAB trade although those shares are… beneficially owned by Mrs FXM because the money has come straight out of Mrs FXM’s account because the account is opened by NAB trade in Mrs DXQ’s name, those shares are listed in Mrs DXQ’s name. So when we went back to Centrelink and they lost the documents and reassessed, they said these shares don’t belong to Mrs FXM. So they didn’t count them, so they only counted as Mrs FXM the assets as $100,000.00 in cash that she had at that time, the house $540,000.00, $640,000.00. The RAD does not count as an asset. They calculated that she is entitled to a pension that she receives of four hundred and something dollars a fortnight.
When asked why Mrs FXM’s shares were bought in Mrs DXQ’s name, Mr KXQ could not give a satisfactory explanation. He said he did not intend to purchase shares using Mrs FXM’s money in Mrs DXQ’s name. It appears that he inadvertently did so. He said ‘it must be because Mrs DXQ is the operator of the account, the shares come under her name.’
The evidence was that Mr KXQ purchased bank shares using Mrs FXM’s funds in about mid-2019. Mr KXQ’s evidence about what he did after he found out that he had used Mrs FXM’s money to buy the bank shares in Mrs DXQ’s name was as follows:
When I became aware of this when I first opened the account 18 months ago… what happened was the bank shares in the beginning went down really badly. I said for tax purposes this is going to be a disaster because if we do something to change this to put this into Mrs FXM’s name specifically, the tax office will say a loss is going to be incurred by Mrs DXQ so I left it there and traded it up as best I could… anyway [there was a] big improvement. …the first few months while the banks were paying dividends, you will notice in the financial report, every time a dividend came and the dividend came into this account, I transferred it to the exact amount into Mrs FXM’s investment account… first opportunity I could.

It appears on Mr KXQ’s evidence that because of the intermingling of Mrs FXM’s estate with that of Mrs DXQ’s, Centrelink may have been mistaken as to the extent of Mrs FXM’s estate when applying the assets test to determine her entitlement to the aged pension, and Mr KXQ knew about the situation and allowed it to continue. He said,
Mrs DXQ has not benefited at all. If this year, she makes a capital gain, well, she will have to pay the tax… oh no, she won’t actually because beneficially Mrs FXM is the owner but I didn’t want to complicate things with Centrelink. I don’t know where I stand now. This is so convoluted. I don’t know what to do now.
There is the real prospect that Mrs FXM is not in fact entitled to the aged pension because of the extent of her assets, but neither Mrs DXQ nor Mr KXQ could say.
It was clear to the Board that Mr KXQ made all of the investment decisions for Mrs FXM and operated Mrs FXM’s bank account and Mrs DXQ’ share trading account. His evidence was as follows: ‘My wife has tasked me the job of decision maker because she does not know how to buy a share or sell a share. We did not open a specific account for this.’
When Mrs DXQ was then asked directly if she had delegated the responsibility of looking after her mother’s money to Mr KXQ, she agreed that she had.
After the Board pointed out that it could determine to appoint the Public Trustee as administrator of Mrs FXM’s estate because Mrs DXQ had not appreciated her duty was not to delegate the powers and responsibilities of administration to her husband and to only use her mother’s money for the benefit of her mother, Mrs DXQ said Mr KXQ ‘filled in the forms’ but she read them, and they ‘worked as a team.’ She later said that she and her husband ‘worked together’ and she sat beside him when all of the decisions were made and the decisions were made together. That evidence was unconvincing. Mrs DXQ’s understanding of her mother’s financial affairs was very limited.
When asked if she took advice from an accountant or a financial planner as to the best way of handling her mother’s finances, Mrs DXQ said she had not.

Decision

The Board found on the basis of the HCPR and the evidence provided by Mrs DXQ and Mr KXQ that Mrs FXM is a person with a disability, by reason of which, she is unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of matters relating to her person or circumstances, including where to live, medical treatment and healthcare, and what support services she should access.
The Board also found that by reason of that disability, Mrs FXM is unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of matters related to her estate including day to day financial matters, dealing with Centrelink, managing her investments and her real property. In coming to that conclusion, the Board considered the evidence set out above and the nature and extent of Mrs FXM’s estate which is not insignificant.

Guardianship Order

Mrs DXQ’s Private Guardian’s Report provides that no decisions need to be made about accommodation or health care. Mrs DXQ could not identify any specific decisions that needed to be made in her oral evidence, nor did Mr KXQ.
Mrs DXQ’s evidence about the need to consent to a ‘chemical restraint’ for her mother was troubling. The Commonwealth Quality of Care Principles 2014 made under section 96-1 Aged Care Act 1997 which regulates Mrs FXM’s accommodation and care defines a ‘chemical restraint’ as follows:
chemical restraint means a restraint that is, or that involves, the use of medication or a chemical substance for the purpose of influencing a person’s behaviour, other than medication prescribed for the treatment of, or to enable treatment of, a diagnosed mental disorder, a physical illness or a physical condition.
Mrs DXQ’s power under the Guardianship Order was limited to decisions concerning accommodation, and health care and treatment that is in the best interests of Mrs FXM. A ‘chemical restraint’ as defined above does not include medication prescribed for treatment. Therefore, if medication was being administered to Mrs FXM for the treatment of a mental disorder or physical condition, then it was not a ‘chemical restraint’ and it was within Mrs DXQ’s power to consent to it. If it was not for treatment but solely to influence Mrs
FXM’s behaviour, then Mrs DXQ did not have the power to consent to its administration.
Given the limited evidence and the inability to hear from the prescribing medical practitioner or staff at [the aged care facility in Hobart], the Board proceeded on the basis that Mrs DXQ was exercising her power under the Guardianship Order by consenting to treatment for her mother and her use of the term
‘chemical restraint’ was not intended by her to have the same meaning as in the Quality of Care Principles 2014.
That being the case, without appointment as guardian, as Mrs FXM’s only daughter and the person having her care, Mrs DXQ is able to consent to such treatment as ‘person responsible’ pursuant to section 39 of the Act.
Accordingly, Mrs FXM is not in need of a guardian and consistent with the principles in section 6 of the Act, the Board must revoke the Guardianship Order.
The Board observes, that it would be prudent of Mrs DXQ, as person responsible to find out the purpose of the prescribing of the medication she referred to as a ‘chemical restraint.’ If there is evidence that medication is being prescribed and administered to Mrs FXM only for the purpose of controlling her behaviour then it would be open to Mrs DXQ to make application to the Board for a guardianship order with the power to consent to the administration of a chemical restraint.
The Board orders that the Guardianship Order for Mrs FXM made 8 March 2018 has been reviewed and revoked.

Administration Order

Taking into account the evidence concerning the extent of Mrs FXM’ estate and the considerations set out in subsections 51(2) and (3) of the Act, the Board is satisfied in all the circumstances that the need for the appointment of an administrator of Mrs FXM’ estate continues.
The management of the estate has been complicated by the misuse of Mrs
FXM’s funds that will need to be recovered from Mrs DXQ, the intermingling of Mrs FXM’s estate with Mrs DXQ’s because of the purchase of shares by Mr KXQ in Mrs DXQ’s name, and the need for clarification of Centrelink’s records as to Mrs FXM’s assets and whether or not Mrs FXM is in fact entitled to the aged pension. There is a need for a competent administrator to disentangle Mrs FXM’s affairs. Mrs DXQ and Mr KXQ on whom she improperly relied to manage her mother’s finances, by their own admission, do not know how to do that.
None the less, Mrs DXQ wished to continue in the role of Administrator for her mother. The Board therefore considered whether it could be satisfied about the matters set out in subsections 54(1)(d)(i)-(iv) of the Act in respect of Mrs DXQ. The Board found that it could not be so satisfied.
Had Mrs DXQ read the Handbook, she would have understood that she had a duty to only use her mother’s money for the benefit of her mother, a duty to take control of and take proper care of her mother’s estate in her mother’s best interest and not delegate the responsibility for doing so to another person, and to adhere to the principle in section 7 of the Trustee Act 1898 to ‘exercise the care, diligence and skill that a prudent person of business would exercise in managing the affairs of another person.’ She would also have known about her ability to seek an order from the Board permitting her to lawfully gift from her mother’s estate.
Mrs DXQ failed to act in the best interests of her mother in relation to the unauthorised gift and in the delegation of her responsibilities as administrator to her husband, and appeared to fail to appreciate those failures. The Board could not be satisfied that if the appointment continued that she would act in the best interests of Mrs FXM at all times because of that lack of appreciation.
The Board could not be satisfied that Mrs DXQ’s interests do not conflict with those of Mrs FXM because at the time of the hearing, the unauthorised gift had not been repaid and Mrs FXM remained liable to her mother for its return. The intermingling of her mother’s estate with her own in respect of the shares also potentially puts her in a position of conflict, particularly if a Commonwealth offence has been committed because Mrs FXM has been in receipt of the Aged Pension to which Mrs DXQ ought to have known Mrs FXM was not entitled.
The Board could not be satisfied that Mrs DXQ has sufficient expertise to administer the estate. Mrs DXQ admitted as much when she agreed that she delegated her duties as administrator to Mr KXQ and relied on him to manage Mrs FXM’s finances.
For all of the above reasons, the Board could not be satisfied that Mrs DXQ is a suitable person to act as administrator of Mrs FXM’s estate. The need for an administrator remains, so the Board determined to vary the Administration Order to appoint the Public Trustee.
Accordingly, the Board orders that:
1.The Administration Order for FXM made on 8 March 2018 has been reviewed and varied and from this day the Order is:
i. The Public Trustee (Tas) is appointed as Administrator of the estate of FXM.
2.This Order remains in effect until 18 February 2022.
The Board directs that DXQ pay the sum of $4,000.00 to the estate of FXM at the earliest opportunity.

********

[2021] TASGAB 7

11 February 2021