IIW
[2015] QCAT 19
•19 January 2015
| CITATION: | IIW [2015] QCAT 19 |
| PARTIES: | IIW |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA952814-14, GAA9529-14, GAA128-15 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | 12 December 2014, and 19 January 2015 |
| HEARD AT: | Southport |
| DECISION OF: | Member McDonald |
| DELIVERED ON: | 19 January 2015 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The administration order being number G64045/01 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal of Victoria in the matter of IIW made on 2 September 2014 is registered in this tribunal for the term of the original order. | ||
| CATCHWORDS: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults - recognition of Interstate order - all assets in Victoria - adult in nursing home in Queensland | ||
APPEARANCES EI, MI
This matter went to oral hearing on 12 December 2014. It was adjourned subject to the submission of a further application and supporting material. On 19 January 2015, 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
Ms B, The social worker at the local hospital lodged the application with the Tribunal for the appointment of an administrator and guardian for IIW during his admission. Her application is dated 11 August 2014.
This application noted that the current VCAT orders were due to expire and the adult would need ongoing financial assistance. The application was flawed in that it did not effectively identify who the applicant proposed to be the adult’s administrator. While the application stated “EI and her two children will submit an application” no such application was brought forward. The Tribunal in Chambers considered this was unclear and assumed the Public Guardian and Public Trustee was proposed in these roles. The matter went to hearing on that basis.
At the hearing of 12 December 2014, MI, the adult’s current co-administrator, indicated that appointments had been reviewed by VCAT on 2 September 2014. At that hearing VCAT dismissed the guardianship appointment, finding no need for a substitute decision maker since IIW is placed in permanent residential care.
The administration appointment appointing jointly and severally MI and LS as administrators of IIW’s estate until further order. The order is to be reassessed 30 September 2014.
MI stated to the Tribunal that he had no diffiulties operating with this Order. He indicated that all IIW’s assets were in Victoria. There was real property registered in that state’s land registry and none in Queensland.
MI considered that the social worker was assisting them to do what was necessary and had been informed that they had to go through the QCAT process. They worked together with the social worker at the hospital.
Unfortunately Ms B, was not available to attend the hearing. The Tribunal notes that her application identifies that she was supportive of EI being appointed jointly with her two children as administrators, and Ms MI appointed as guardian. The social work report she refers to in her application notes that EI is IIW’s ex-partner, but that she and her two children (MI and LS) have been actively involved in the adult’s care for several ears and were in her view appropriate substitute decision makers. The report dated 30 July 2014 noted she had encouraged him to seek recognition of the VCAT order.
For the Tribunal to make an appointment the requirements of section 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) must be met. In a report to the Tribunal dated 29 July 2014, Dr R from the hospital where the adult was admitted makes clear that as a result of a CVA, IIW is unable to make even simple decisions in all areas of his life. He noted a longstanding cognitive decline and collateral reports of disorientation prior to his admission to Hospital. The Tribunal finds that the presumption of capacity is rebutted in these circumstances.
The Tribunal must be also satisfied that there is a need for a decision and without the appointment the adult’s needs will not be adequately met or interests adequately protected. The evidence before the Tribunal is that IIW is settled in residential care upon discharge from hospital and all needs are being met b the facility. EI has had no diffiulties operating as a statutory health attorney. The Tribunal therefore finds no need for the appointment of a Guardian.
The evidence of MI is that he has had no diffiulties operating with the VCAT appointment, and that all the adult’s estate is in Victoria. He feels there is no need for an administration appointment as decisions are being effectively made under the Victorian appointment. The Tribunal finds there is no need for a fresh appointment given the land held by IIW is not in Queensland. Upon the filing of the original order of VCAT, the Tribunal recognises the order of VCAT of 2 September 2014 appointing MI and LS as administrators of IIW’s estate.
0
0
0