LZT

[2015] NSWCATGD 47

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

LZT [2015] NSWCATGD 47

Hearing dates:

21 May 2015

Date of orders:

21 May 2015

Decision date:

21 May 2015

Jurisdiction:

Guardianship Division

Before:

A Suthers, Senior Member (Legal)
D Barker, Senior Member (Professional)
L Stewart, General Member (Community)

Decision:

Application for the appointment of a guardian and financial manager adjourned.

Catchwords:

GUARDIANSHIP – application for the appointment of a guardian – where subject person unable to participate in the hearing due to emergency – different views about where subject person should reside – Tribunal satisfied that hearing should be adjourned

 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – application for the appointment of a financial manager – where subject person unable to participate in the hearing due to emergency – hearing adjourned

  INTERLOCUTORY – hearing adjourned – protective jurisdiction – balance between right of subject person to participate in the hearing and need for the appointment of a guardian

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

In relation to guardianship:
Mrs LZT (subject person)
Dr IPL (applicant)
The NSW Public Guardian

  In relation to financial management:
Mrs LZT (subject person)’
Dr IPL (applicant)
Mr EAQ (applicant)
Mrs DYQ (applicant)
The NSW Trustee and Guardian

Representation:

Nil

File Number(s):

59001

Publication restriction:

Decisions of the Guardianship Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal have been anonymised to remove any information that may identify any person involved in the Tribunal’s proceedings (s 65, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW))

REASONS FOR DECISION

What the Tribunal decided

1. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing.

Background

2. Mrs LZT is an 81-year old lady who is presently residing in an aged care facility, on a respite basis. Mrs LZT is a native Hungarian speaker, but she also speaks English.

3. She has lived independently in her own home for many years, but concern was raised for her wellbeing after she collapsed at a day centre she attends.

4. The decision to place Mrs LZT into respite care appears to have been made, and in any event was supported by her appointed guardians, Mr EAQ and Mrs DYQ.

5. Mr EAQ and Mrs DYQ were formerly appointed as attorneys by Mrs LZT, but she subsequently revoked that appointment.

6. An application to appoint a financial manager for Mrs LZT was made to the Tribunal by Mr EAQ and Mrs DYQ. They sought that they be appointed.

7. Applications to appoint a guardian and financial manager were also made by Dr IPL, a general practitioner who has treated Mrs LZT.

8. Mrs LZT is said to have a diagnosis of dementia, but there is a significant variance in opinion amongst those who attended the hearing as to Mrs LZT’s current level of cognition and what assistance, if any, she requires by way of the appointment of substitute decision makers.

The Hearing

9. At the end of these Reasons for Decision are lists of the parties to the application and witnesses who attended the hearing. [Appendix removed for publication]

Why was the Hearing adjourned?

10. Arrangements were made for Mrs LZT to attend the hearing. She was to be collected and transported to the hearing by Mr EAQ and Mrs DYQ.

11. Unfortunately, at the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal was informed by Mr EAQ that Mrs LZT had, what he described as, a panic attack whilst awaiting the hearing. Mr EAQ and Mrs DYQ decided that it would be best to return Mrs LZT to her respite care. As a result of the travel times involved, neither Mrs LZT nor Mrs DYQ were available to attend the hearing.

12. The Tribunal had to decide whether it was possible, or appropriate to proceed in the absence of these two parties.

13. Mr EAQ was satisfied that it was. It was his view that he could represent his wife and that, as a result of her current level of cognitive function, Mrs LZT would not be able to understand or participate in the hearing.

14. Dr IPL was of the view that Mrs LZT could understand and participate in the hearing process. He was, however, concerned about the delay which would be occasioned by an adjournment. He pointed to what he said was Mrs LZT’s distress at being placed in respite and felt that this was detrimental to her mental and physical health. Dr IPL believed that Mr EAQ and Mrs DYQ intend to make Mrs LZT’s placement permanent.

15. The Tribunal ascertained from Mr EAQ that no such decision had been made, or would be made during the period of the proposed adjournment. The Tribunal was able to reschedule a further hearing during the period of respite care which remained available to Mrs LZT. The hearing would be able to take place closer to where Mrs LZT resides and possibly in the respite facility.

16. There was no allegation that the level of care provided to Mrs LZT on respite was deficient or inappropriate, only that it was unnecessary.

17. In those circumstances the Tribunal was satisfied that the benefit to Mrs LZT in adjourning the hearing to enable her participation outweighed the need to proceed in her absence. A number of people appeared at the hearing who are supportive of Mrs LZT and who appeared to be willing to provide support to her and attempt to minimise any distress to her during the period of the adjournment, including the Applicants.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 16 May 2016