KJN - [2024] QCAT 53 | CaseChat AU

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

KJN [2024] QCAT 53

PARTIES:

In an application about matters concerning KJN

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAA8167-19
GAA1915-21
GAA1938-21

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

DELIVERED ON:

10 January 2024

HEARING DATE:

14 September 2021, 15 September 2021, 19 November 2021 and 27 April 2022

HEARD AT:

Caloundra and Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Allen

ORDERS:

1.     KJN had capacity to make an enduring power of attorney on 12 January 2021.

2.     The application for the appointment of an administrator is dismissed.

3.     The application for an order about an enduring power of attorney is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – GUARDIANSHIP AND SIMILAR APPOINTMENTS – where the adult has extensive business assets – conflicts between sons – adult has medical event resulting in delirium – conflicting evidence about capacity of adult – adult appoints attorneys during course of proceedings – whether adult has capacity to make financial decisions having regard to his business interests – whether the adult has capacity to make an enduring power of attorney

Guardianship and Administration Act2000 (Qld), s 5, s 11, s 12,
Powers of Attorney Act1998 (Qld), s 41, s 113

Human Rights Act2019 (Qld), s 13

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Adult:

Mr Crofton M of Counsel instructed by McColm Matsinger Lawyers

Applicant/s:

Mr Hastie J of Counsel instructed by O’Connor, Ruddy & Garrett Solicitors

Proposed Administrator/s:

Mr Ulyatt, S partner Greenhalgh Pickard

Current Attorney/s:

Ms Pendergast of Counsel instructed by Ascendia Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

KJN is 90 years old and is a very successful businessperson with interests in a Real Estate agency, service stations, commercial property and residential rentals, farming, and land development. He holds these interests personally and through a partnership, companies, and trusts. It was estimated that his assets both owned by him and under his control are valued at nearly 17 million dollars, although he believes that the land is due for revaluation which may increase the value of his assets. He has three sons, KJS, KPL, and KJT who assist him in various businesses with each son being involved mainly in only one aspect of the business. KJS is involved in the farming, land development, and residential rentals. He has assisted with the services stations. KJT is involved in the service stations and has assisted in land development. KPL is involved in the real estate agency and gives general support to KJN in the administration of the businesses. KJS and KJT stated in their material they believed that KPL overstates his role in the business. KJS’s wife KS is the HR manager for the service stations. KPL’s wife KJ works in general business administration assisting KJN. It is fair to say that KJS and KJT have issues with KJ having access to the business bank…

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 KJN

Details

AGLC: KJN [2024] QCAT 53
Case: [2024] QCAT 53
Decision Date: 10 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between the sons of an elderly man who had extensive business interests. The man experienced a medical event that resulted in delirium, leading to conflicting evidence about his capacity to make financial decisions. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues were whether the man had the capacity to make an enduring power of attorney on 12 January 2021 and whether he had the capacity to make an enduring power of attorney generally.

The court found that the man had the capacity to make an enduring power of attorney on 12 January 2021. The court considered evidence from a medical expert, who assessed the man's capacity to make an enduring power of attorney, and found that he had the requisite understanding and memory. The court also considered the man's business acumen and experience, which demonstrated his capacity to manage his financial affairs. The court rejected the evidence of the man's sons, who claimed that he lacked capacity due to his medical condition. The court found that the sons had a conflict of interest and were not reliable witnesses.

The court dismissed the application for the appointment of an administrator and the application for an order about an enduring power of attorney. The court found that the man had appointed attorneys during the course of the proceedings and that they were capable of managing his affairs. The court also found that the man had the capacity to make an enduring power of attorney generally, and that the appointment of an administrator was not necessary. The court emphasised the importance of respecting the autonomy of individuals with impaired capacity, where possible, and the need for careful consideration of evidence in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. KJN had capacity to make an enduring power of attorney on 12 January 2021.

2. The application for the appointment of an administrator is dismissed.

3. The application for an order about an enduring power of attorney is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.