KRM

The case before the court involved a dispute concerning the need for an administrator to be appointed for an elderly woman suffering from dementia. The application for an administrator was brought by her children, who sought to replace the current administrator, the Public Trustee. The court had to determine whether the statutory presumption of capability had been rebutted, and whether there was a need for an administrator due to the woman's cognitive impairment and alleged financial exploitation. The case hinged on the distinction between questions of cognitive capability and questions of need, with the former being a medical question and the latter a legal one.

The court examined the statutory presumption of capability in the context of dementia, holding that the presumption had not been rebutted by the evidence presented. The court emphasised that capability and need were distinct and separate questions. While the woman's cognitive impairment was evident, the court found that there was no evidence of a need for an administrator due to her condition. However, the court did find evidence of financial exploitation, which necessitated the appointment of an administrator. The court considered it necessary to provide directions to the administrator to protect the woman's financial interests and prevent further exploitation.

In light of the court's findings, the application for an administrator was dismissed, and the Public Trustee was appointed as the plenary administrator with specific directions to safeguard the woman's financial interests and prevent further exploitation. The directions included requirements for the administrator to monitor the woman's financial affairs closely, report regularly to the court, and take appropriate action to protect her assets. The court's decision emphasised the importance of distinguishing between questions of cognitive capability and need, and the need for careful consideration of the evidence in each case.