JC - [2012] QCAT 609 | CaseChat AU

CITATION:

JC [2012] QCAT 609

PARTIES:

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAA7677-12 / GAA7678-12 / GAA10198-12

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

HEARING DATE:

30 November 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

C Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The guardianship order made by the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal on 15 November 2012 is recognised in Queensland for the term of that order.

2. The review of the appointment of a guardian for JC is dismissed.

3. The review of the appointment of an administrator for JC is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GUARDIANSHIP – whether tribunal has jurisdiction to make an appointment – whether adult has the capacity to change his domicile – where orders made under another law have been recognised – where appointment had lapsed prior to review being finalised – where appropriate to continue with recognition of orders made under another law

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, s 169

FDN [2011] QCAT 325
Hepburn v Skirving (1861) 9 WR 764
Uruqhart v Butterfield (1887) 37 Ch D 357

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

JC has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. The evidence provided to QCAT is that JC has manifested paranoid ideation, thought disorder, agitation, and disorganisation for over two years. He has also been diagnosed with polysubstance dependence which exacerbates his mental illness.
His mother, HJ, was appointed on 16 November 2011 by the Guardianship Tribunal in New South Wales to be his guardian to make decisions about accommodation, advocacy, health care, legal services and to give medical and dental consents. That appointment was for a period of 12 months. HJ was also appointed on that same day as the financial manager for JC until further order of the tribunal.
The appointments of the Guardianship Tribunal were recognised in Queensland on 6 December 2011 under section 169 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (GAA Act) and as a result the New South Wales orders are treated as if they were orders made by QCAT. Appointments of guardians and administrators (called financial managers in New South Wales) are reviewed by QCAT prior to the date of the expiry of the appointments and as is the case with Queensland appointments, QCAT’s registry commenced a review of the appointment of HJ as the guardian and administrator for JC.
In the meantime, the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal commenced its own review of the appointment of the guardian and on 15 November 2012 continued that appointment for 12 months. JC is currently resident in New South Wales and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal by virtue of his current location in that State.
HJ has asked QCAT to reach an outcome in its review which continues her appointment as a guardian in Queensland. QCAT started its hearing of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading JC

Details

AGLC: JC [2012] QCAT 609
Case: [2012] QCAT 609
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case are JC and HJ, who was appointed as JC's guardian and administrator. The dispute concerns the jurisdiction of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) to recognise and review the appointments of HJ as guardian and administrator for JC, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and polysubstance dependence. The court in this case is QCAT.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether QCAT had the jurisdiction to make an order appointing a guardian for JC who resides outside of Queensland, and whether QCAT should review and continue the appointment of HJ as JC's guardian and administrator. This required the court to consider the capacity of JC to change his domicile, as well as the appropriate connection between JC and Queensland.

QCAT found that JC's domicile of choice was in Queensland, as he had impaired decision-making capacity and had not taken up residence in New South Wales with the intention of doing so permanently or indefinitely. The court also decided that it was appropriate to recognise the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal's order appointing HJ as JC's guardian for the term of that order, as ongoing decisions must be made about JC's personal matters. The court found that it was not necessary to review the appointment of HJ as administrator, as she already had reporting obligations under the New South Wales order.

In conclusion, QCAT recognised the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal's order appointing HJ as JC's guardian for the term of that order, and dismissed the applications to review the appointment of HJ as guardian and administrator in Queensland. This means that during the currency of those orders, HJ has the same authority to make decisions in Queensland for JC about the personal and financial matters specified in the orders as if those orders had been made by QCAT.

Orders