KA
[2016] QCAT 488
•27 September 2016
| CITATION: | KA [2016] QCAT 488 |
PARTIES: | KA |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA7354-16 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Endicott |
| DELIVERED ON: | 27 September 2016 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application by DR for the review of the appointment of an administrator for KA is dismissed |
| CATCHWORDS: | GUARDIANS, COMMITTEES, ADMINISTRATORS, RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS – APPOINTMENT – where adult had an administrator appointed in April 2016, where the appointment will be reviewed in one year, where an application to review that appointment was filed within three months of the appointment, where no new and relevant information was provided in support of an early review – where no information was provided to establish that the proposed appointees were more appropriate than the current appointee - where no information was provided that the current appointee was no longer competent – whether the application for an early review lacked substance – whether the application for review should be dismissed Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) |
APPEARANCES:
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
On 11 April 2016 the Tribunal conducted a review of the appointment of an administrator for KA and changed the administrator from KJ to The Public Trustee of Queensland. The terms of the order made by the Tribunal included that a review of the appointment would be held in one year. No appeal was commenced against this decision.
DR sought an earlier review in an application filed on 24 June 2016. DR stated in his application that due to the previous administrator KJ being ill and had made some poor decisions, the family of KA has requested that DR and his wife apply as administrators. Neither DR nor his wife had applied to be administrators at the hearing conducted on 11 April 2016 when the appointment of The Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for KA was not opposed by the persons attending at that hearing.
The Tribunal has in place a Practice Direction[1] which sets out the type of information that is required to be provided to the Tribunal before a hearing is held of a review of an appointment of a decision-maker made under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) before the end of the term of the appointment or before the time when a review of the appointment is designated to take place. In essence, the Tribunal requires an applicant to provide information as to what new and relevant information has become available since the hearing, or what relevant change in circumstances has occurred since the hearing or what relevant information that was not presented at the hearing has now become available.
[1]Practice Direction 8 of 2010.
In addition, the applicant for an early review before the designated time for a review or before the end of a term of appointment must provide information on which a conclusion can be based that the current appointee is no longer competent or that another person is more appropriate for appointment. The Tribunal registry wrote to DR on 18 July 2016 to draw his attention to the requirements of the Practice Direction. DR was also informed that information as to the matters set out in the Practice Direction would be considered and a decision then made as to whether the Tribunal would proceed to a hearing of the review.
DR was informed that unless he could satisfy the requirements of the Practice Direction within three weeks of the date of the registry’s letter, the application for a review would be closed. No response was received from DR. No new and relevant information was provided as to why a review of the appointment should be commenced and proceed to a hearing less than four months into the term of the appointment. DR had been informed that without that information, the review would not proceed further.
The appointment made on 11 April 2016 gives adequate decision-making support to KA. The family of KA have an opportunity in early 2017 to raise with the Tribunal the basis as to why any change to the current appointment should be made. While reviews of an appointment can be considered before the end of the term of that appointment, there must be sufficient grounds put forward to warrant a hearing of an early review. DR did not provide any such grounds. He could have sought to appeal the decision after April 2016 but he did not do this. If he considers that he and his wife are more appropriate to act as administrators for KA, then he can put forward his views at the time of the designated review in 2017.
The application for a review lacked substance, as it did not satisfy the requirements of Practice Direction 8 of 2010. Under s47 of the QCAT Act, applications can be dismissed before hearing if they lack substance. The application for review by DR lacked substance as the information in support of that review did not reveal any reasonable basis for an early review before the designated review due in 2017. The application was dismissed.
0
0
0