Gdla v GMG

CITATION:

GDLA v GMG & ors [2017] QCATA 18

PARTIES:	GDLA (Applicant/Appellant)
v
GMG GDSD RAL (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL394 -16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MENTAL HEALTH – GUARDIANS, COMMITTEES, ADMINISTRATORS, MANAGERS AND RECEIVERS – APPOINTMENT – where children appointed as administrators for mother – where sibling not appointed appealed decision – whether an eligible person – whether tribunal should grant leave to appeal – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) s 163(1), s 163(3)(A)(viii)

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

GDA is an elderly lady who now lives in residential aged care after a severe stroke that left her unable to attend to her own affairs. Her son, GMG, filed an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator. The tribunal appointed GMG, GDSD and RAL administrator’s for GDA. They are three of GDA’s eight children. The application for a guardian was withdrawn.
GDLA is another of GDA’s children. He lives in the family home. He wants to appeal the tribunal’s decision. Because GDLA was not a party to the hearing before the tribunal, he must first establish that he has a right to appeal.
An eligible person may appeal a tribunal’s decision.[1] An ‘eligible person’ is the person who is the subject of the application (GDA), the applicant (GMG), a person proposed for appointment, or a person whose power was changed or removed by the tribunal.
[1]Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 163(1).
GDLA is none of these. The tribunal may, however, give a person leave to appeal.[2] The tribunal must, therefore, consider the application for leave to appeal on general principles. Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[3]
[2]Ibid, s 163(3)(A)(viii).
[3]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].

Is there a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error?

GDLA does not point to any error of the tribunal. He does not submit, for example, that GDA had capacity. He does not submit that his siblings are inappropriate appointees. Instead, his submissions focus only on the financial implications of the administrators’ decision to ask him to pay rent while he lives in the family home.
There is no reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error.

Is an appeal necessary to correct a substantial injustice?

GDLA was given notice of the tribunal hearing. He could have attended, but he did not do so. He could have been actively involved in the administration of his mother’s affairs but he is not. The administrators’ decision to charge GDLA rent is a matter between the administrators and GDLA. It is not a ‘substantial injustice’ that warrants the tribunal’s intervention.

There is no reasonably arguable case that the tribunal was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gdla sought to appeal a tribunal's decision that appointed their children, rather than them, as administrators of their mother's estate. The tribunal had ruled that the appellant was not an eligible person to be appointed as an administrator of the estate. Gdla sought leave to appeal the tribunal's decision on the basis that the tribunal had erred in law by not granting them leave to appeal and that there were grounds for leave to appeal. The court was required to determine whether the tribunal erred in its determination that Gdla was not an eligible person to be appointed as an administrator of the estate and whether the tribunal should have granted leave to appeal. The court held that there was no error in the tribunal's decision that Gdla was not an eligible person to be appointed as an administrator of the estate, and that there were no grounds for leave to appeal. The court found that the tribunal had considered all relevant matters and had made a decision that was open on the material before it. The court held that the tribunal's decision should be upheld and that leave to appeal should be refused. The tribunal's decision was correct in finding that Gdla was not an eligible person to be appointed as an administrator of the estate. The court found that the tribunal had considered all relevant matters and had made a decision that was open on the material before it. The court held that there were no grounds for leave to appeal and that the tribunal's decision should be upheld. The court held that the tribunal's decision was correct in finding that Gdla was not an eligible person to be appointed as an administrator of the estate. The tribunal had considered all relevant matters and had made a decision that was open on the material before it. The court held that the tribunal's decision should be upheld and that leave to appeal should be refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established