Ha v The Public Trustee of Queensland

[2013] QCATA 275

CITATION: HA v The Public Trustee of Queensland [2013] QCATA 275

PARTIES:	HA (Appellant)
v
The Public Trustee of Queensland (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL031-13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Endicott, Senior Member
P Goodman, Member

DELIVERED ON: 14 October 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – where no error of law contended – where leave to appeal sought – where no grounds to grant leave to appeal established

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s142
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s 12

Re TG [2011] QCATA 97

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

1. On 15 April 2013 QCAT appointed The Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for HA. HA would like to appeal against that decision.

2. Under the QCAT Act, an appeal can only be brought directly if it is on a question of law. Otherwise, leave to appeal must be sought.[1]

   [1] QCAT Act s 142.

3. No error of law is identified or suggested in HA’s submissions. Therefore consideration of the appeal will only proceed if leave to appeal is granted.

4. In deciding whether to grant leave to appeal, we must consider[2]:

   a)    is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the original decision?

   b)    is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will be successful in an appeal?

   c)    is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error?

   d)    is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appeals tribunal, would be to the public advantage?

   [2]        Re TG [2011] QCATA 97.

5. HA submits that the decision to appoint an administrator is cruel and unfair in regard to his freedom and liberty. He submitted: ‘I should be free to shop and have a point in life not an oppressed prisoner in my own home’. HA asks that his Disability Pension is paid into his bank account, rather than to The Public Trustee for management.

6. HA submits that:

   a)    his freedom has been taken;

   b)    his trust officer is a monster;

   c)    the financial hardship he is experiencing since the appointment is hindering his life; and

   d)    the appointment is a deprivation of his liberty.

7. The Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 allows the Tribunal to appoint administrators in very limited circumstances[3]. This is because, as HA points out, administrators necessarily interfere with a person’s fundamental right to make their own decisions about their own life.

   [3]        Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s 12.

8. If legislative requirements are met, the Tribunal may appoint an administrator. HA does not submit that the requirements for appointment were not met.

9. Once an administrator is appointed, the administrator must act as required by the legislation[4]. In this case, The Public Trustee is responsible for making financial decisions for HA, including developing and implementing a budget for him.

   [4]        Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 Chapter 4.

10. There is no submission that the administrator is not acting as is required by law. We accept that HA now has access to less spending money than he previously did. That does not mean that the Tribunal was wrong to appoint an administrator.

11. There is no identified error in the Tribunal’s decision. There is no reasonable prospect an appeal would be successful. There is no question of importance about which a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be of public advantage.

12. There is no basis upon which leave to appeal is warranted. Leave to appeal is therefore refused.