KAN - [2022] QCAT 168

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

KAN [2022] QCAT 168

PARTIES:

In an application about matters concerning KAN

In applications about matters concerning KAN

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAA15542-20, GAA15543-20, GAA2788-21, GAA3833-21, GAA3834-21, GAA3835-21

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

DELIVERED ON:

11 May 2022

HEARING DATE:

9 June 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Allen

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

GUARDIANSHIP

1.       The Public Guardian is appointed as guardian for KAN for the following personal matters:

(a)    Accommodation;

(b)    With whom KAN has contact and/or visits;

(c)     Healthcare;

(d)    Provision of services, including in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

2.       This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in two (2) years.

ADMINISTRATION

3.       Perpetual Trustee Company Limited is appointed as administrator for KAN for all financial matters.

4.       The administrator is to provide a financial management plan to the Tribunal within four (4) months.

5.       The Tribunal directs the administrator to provide accounts to the Tribunal’s approved examiners on the second anniversary of the initial appointment and every five (5) years thereafter.

6.       This appointment of Perpetual Trustee Company Limited remains current until further order of the Tribunal.

NOTICE OF INTEREST IN LAND

7.       Before 28 September 2021 the Administrator must:

(a)    Record the appointment as administrator on any property registered in the name of KAN with the Registrar of Titles by lodging the appropriate notice with a copy of the Tribunal’s appointment decision.

(b)    Providing confirmation to the Tribunal that this has been completed by providing:

i)    a copy of the Title search conducted identifying KAN’s property; and

ii)   a copy of the Titles registry “lodgment summary form “ confirming the notice has been lodged for each property held by KAN.

(c) if no property is held, provide a copy to the Tribunal of a Record of a search of the Land Registry, from the Registrar of Titles confirming no property is held.

8.       If the ownership of any property of KAN changes in anyway or KAN acquires an interest in another property the administrator must, within fourteen (14) days of such changes:

(a)    Give a copy of this order to the Registrar of Titles and

(b)    Give a notice to the Registrar about the changes to KANs interest in another property.

CATCHWORDS:

HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – where court appointed trustee of damages award of a minor – whether court order amenable to appointment of administrator without further court order – where consideration of appropriateness and competence of proposed appointees as guardian having respect to previous to their previous conduct – where no other appropriate appointee available – appointment of Public Guardian – where trustee company acting as trustee under court order ensured adults financial needs met and eligible and appropriate as administrator

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) s 11B, s 12,…

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 KAN

Details

AGLC: KAN [2022] QCAT 168
Case: [2022] QCAT 168
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of KAN, a young adult with profound disabilities due to birth trauma, was heard by Member Allen of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The key issues before the court were the appointment of a guardian and an administrator for KAN's personal and financial matters, respectively. KAN's mother, EL, and her partner, KKS, were initially responsible for his care, but concerns were raised regarding their ability to provide adequate care and ensure KAN's full potential was reached. The court needed to decide on the eligibility and appropriateness of potential guardians and administrators, as well as address the issue of Perpetual Trustee Company Limited's role as the trustee of KAN's damages award.

The court found that KAN had impaired capacity for both personal and financial matters due to his profound disabilities. It was determined that his current informal caregivers, EL and KKS, were not suitable to be his guardians, as they had not adequately met his care needs and had a history of conflict and control issues. The Public Guardian was appointed as KAN's guardian for personal matters, while Perpetual Trustee Company Limited was appointed as his administrator for financial matters. The court also outlined specific directives for the Public Guardian and the administrator, such as the preparation of a financial management plan and the provision of accounts to the Tribunal's approved examiners.

The court's decision was based on the need to protect KAN's rights, interests, and opportunities, as well as ensuring that his assets and income were managed appropriately. The appointment of the Public Guardian and Perpetual Trustee Company Limited was deemed to be the most suitable option, given the circumstances and the eligibility and appropriateness requirements outlined in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld). The court also considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in its decision, concluding that there was no less restrictive way of dealing with the matter.

Orders