JMW
[2012] QCAT 574
•23 October 2012
| CITATION: | JMW [2012] QCAT 574 |
| PARTIES: | JMW |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA6186-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Ron Joachim, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 23 October 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application to review the appointment of an administrator for JMW is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Administration – Review of appointment – where applicant claims changed circumstances or new information Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, s 35 QCAT Practice Direction 8 of 2010 |
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
On 29 July 2010 the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) revoked the appointment of the Adult Guardian as guardian for JMW and changed the appointment of an administrator by removing the Public Trustee as administrator and appointing GMS as administrator for JMW for all financial matters. This appointment was for five years.
This decision was appealed by SI who was JMW’s fiancée. The Appeal Tribunal refused the application and issued reasons for their decision on 8 July 2011.
On 16 July 2012, SI applied to QCAT for a review of the appointment of the administrator claiming in his application that the current arrangements were problematic as there had been no financial update or balance sheet from the administrator over the past two years. He further claimed that the administrator had refused to act in terms of section 35 to take the previous administrators to task for missing money and that she was paying people to have basic book work done. The basis of current administrator’s tenure was that there would be no charge.
Directions were issued by Senior Member Endicott on 23 August 2012, requiring the applicant to file in the Tribunal and send to the administrator any further information on which he intends to rely in support of a request to review the appointment, together with submissions as to why the review application should continue to a hearing and not be dismissed without hearing in accordance with practice direction 8 of 2010.
The directions further noted that any other active party may file submissions as to whether the application should continue or be dismissed.
A Member of the Tribunal was to make a determination on the basis of the filed submissions and without an oral hearing as to whether to schedule the review application for hearing or whether to dismiss the application.
Practice direction 8 of 2010 provides that a review of an appointment of an administrator by the Tribunal will be conducted at the end of the appointment, as ordered by the Tribunal, except in cases where new or relevant information has become available since the hearing, or a relevant change in circumstances has occurred since the hearing or relevant information that was not presented to the Tribunal at the hearing has become available.
Whether this matter should proceed to hearing depends on whether one of those three factors is evidenced in the material provided by the submissions. It is noteworthy that the last set of accounts provided to the Tribunal by the administrator have been examined internally by the registry at the Tribunal and it was concluded that the administrator is managing the estate in the adult’s best interests and in accordance with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. The latest accounts were provided to the Tribunal by the administrator on 11 July 2012.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the submissions sent by RT, the proposed alternative administrator, from SI, from JMW, the administrator and JT.
The majority of the submissions from RT, SI and JMW contain material which is irrelevant to the actions of the administrator. For instance, I can find nothing in RT’s submissions which relate to new information or a relevant change in circumstances or where relevant information was not available to the Tribunal in July 2010 in her material. Likewise SI’s submissions appear to be an attempt to smear the administrator’s name and refer to matters occurring well before the administration appointment. Those that refer to subsequent events seem to be an attempt to have the appeal reheard.
Much of the information in SI’s submissions refer to the actions of NC, a former administrator.
There is nothing in the material which indicates that the administrator has not been doing a satisfactory job. There is nothing in the material which demonstrates that any of the criteria referred to in practice direction 8 of 2010 are met for the purposes of conducting an early review of the appointment.
There is no evidence that the attorney has not acted honestly and with reasonable diligence.[1] SI criticizes the administrator for not updating JMW’s will. The fact is she has no power to update her will. There is nothing whatsoever in JMW’s affidavit which refers to the actions of the administrator.
[1] Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, section 35.
The Tribunal will dismiss the application for review of the appointment of the administrator on the basis that none of the criteria outlined in practice direction 8 of 2010 have been met. The appointment will be reviewed on the expiry of the term of the appointment.
0
0
0