Maria (a pseudonym)

Case •

[2024] NSWCATGD 27

•

20 December 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Maria (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWCATGD 27
Hearing dates: 20 December 2024
Date of orders: 20 December 2024
Decision date: 20 December 2024
Jurisdiction:Guardianship Division
Before: S L Handebo, Principal Member
Decision:

The Financial Management order for Maria made on 16 May 2018 has been reviewed. The order now is as follows:

1. The appointment of Lana of [address removed for publication] as the financial manager(s) of the estate of Maria is revoked.

2. The estate of Maria is subject to management under the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW).

3. The management of the estate of Maria is committed to the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

4. Lana is to hand over or pay over the estate to NSW Trustee and Guardian of Justice Precinct Offices, Ground floor, 160 Marsden Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2124.

Catchwords:

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – review of financial management order – whether the financial management order should be revoked – whether it is in the best interests of the subject person that the financial management order be revoked – where the appointed financial manager has failed to comply with the directions and authorities of the NSW Trustee and Guardian – where the appointed financial manager and the subject person currently reside overseas – order revoked.

Legislation Cited:

Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), ss 4, 25M, 25M(2)(b), NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW), Div 2 of Pt 4.5

Cases Cited:

Application by AMAM; Re SAM [2011] NSWSC 503

Holt & Anor v Protective Commissioner (1993) 31 NSWLR 227

M v M [2013] NSWSC 1495

Texts Cited:

NSW Trustee and Guardian, “Private Manager’s Handbook”

14 July 2025

Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

007: Review or Revoke Financial Management Order

Maria (the person)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (applicant)
Lana (appointed financial manager)
Representation: None.
File Number(s): NCAT 2018/00056320
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: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 65.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Maria is an 87-year-old woman who ordinarily lives with her niece and carer, Lana, in her own home in a suburb in the Upper North Shore region of Sydney. At the time of the Hearing, Maria and Lana were residing in Taiwan.

  2. On 16 May 2018, the Tribunal appointed Lana as Maria’s financial manager, subject to the authorities and directions of the NSW Trustee and Guardian. On the same date the Tribunal appointed Lana as Maria’s guardian. This order has subsequently been reviewed. Most recently, on 25 May 2023 the Tribunal reappointed Lana as Maria’s guardian for a period of three years with the functions of accommodation, services, health care and medical/dental consent.

  3. On 11 December 2024, the Tribunal received an urgent request from the NSW Trustee and Guardian seeking a review of the financial management order made on 16 May 2018.

  4. These Reasons for Decision relate to the requested review of the financial management order requested by the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

  5. The Hearing was urgently listed on 20 December 2024 and was conducted virtually from the Tribunal’s Sydney Registry.

  6. The Hearing was attended by the following people:

  1. Maria, the subject person;

  2. Lana, the appointed financial manager;

  3. a representative on behalf of the NSW Trustee and Guardian, the applicant; and,

  4. Patrick, Lana’s son.

  1. The Tribunal was also assisted by a certified interpreter in the Mandarin language.

  2. Although Maria attended the Hearing, she was unable to engage in the Hearing process, even with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. Maria is reported to live with advanced dementia, and the Tribunal was informed that Maria would not be able to understand the discussion or converse with the Tribunal either in Mandarin or English. This was consistent with the Tribunal’s attempts to engage with Maria, where she was noted to be non-responsive to the Tribunal’s attempts to converse with her in both languages.

  3. At the conclusion of the Hearing the Tribunal decided to revoke Lana’s appointment as Maria’s financial manager and commit the management of Maria’s estate to the management of the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

WHAT DID THE TRIBUNAL HAVE TO DECIDE?

  1. On reviewing the appointment of the manager of Maria’s estate, the Tribunal may either confirm or revoke the appointment. The Tribunal may revoke the appointment under review only if:

  1. The appointed manager seeks the revocation; or

  2. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the best interests of Maria that the appointment be revoked.

  1. If the appointment of the manager is revoked but the financial management order remains in place, the Tribunal must appoint a substitute manager.

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

  1. In appointing a financial manager, as in making all other orders under the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), the Tribunal must act with the interests of the person concerned as the paramount consideration and in accordance with the other principles set out in s 4 of the Guardianship Act.

  2. Section 25M of the Guardianship Act provides that, if the Tribunal makes a financial management order, it may appoint a suitable person to manage the person’s estate or may commit the management of the estate to the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

  3. In Holt & Anor v Protective Commissioner (1993) 31 NSWLR 227, the Court said that the dominant consideration in making orders about financial managers was the welfare of the person. The President of the Court of Appeal emphasised the Court’s broad discretion in deciding who should be financial manager but also set out possible considerations as to the competing advantages of the Protective Commissioner and a family member as the manager of an estate. The NSW Trustee and Guardian now exercises the role of the Protective Commissioner.

  4. On the side of the Protective Commissioner was seen to be the manifest independence of the statutory office, the advantages of a dispassionate and neutral approach in situations of family conflict and divided views as to the best interests of the person, expertise and experience in managing estates, an impeccable reputation and the security provided to an estate against loss or damage.

  5. The advantages of the appointment of a family member were more economic management of smaller estates (that is, freedom from fees) and a greater familiarity with assets and liabilities in smaller estates, a greater capacity of a person with a disability to interact with the manager so as to exercise a greater influence over the broad directions of the management of the estate, love and affection for and knowledge of the protected person and concern for his or her quality of life, and particular qualities or qualifications enabling family members to act as managers.

  6. In Application by AMAM; Re SAM [2011] NSWSC 503, Hallen AsJ stated:

“[34]    It would be unwise to attempt any definition of the matters that may legitimately be enquired into to determine whether the applicant is suitable. Each case must depend on its own circumstances. Needless to say, however, the Court must consider, at least, the proposed manager’s character, honesty and ability to manage, diligently, the managed person’s property in the managed person’s best interests.”

  1. The matters or “guidelines” which a Tribunal should consider when determining who to appoint as a financial manager are discussed by Lindsay J in M v M [2013] NSWSC 1495 at [50].

  2. Section 25M(2)(b) of the Guardianship Act outlines that the appointment of a suitable person as the manager of an estate does not authorise the manager to interfere in any way with the estate concerned unless the NSW Trustee and Guardian has authorised the person to exercise functions in respect of the estate in accordance with Div 2 of Pt 4.5 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW).

  3. Division 2 of Part 4.5 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act outlines that the NSW Trustee and Guardian may, inter alia:

  1. Make such orders as it thinks fit in relation to the administration and management of the estates of managed persons;

  2. Make such orders as it thinks fit in connection with authorising, directing and enforcing the exercise of the functions of the managers under the Act;

  3. Authorise a manager to have all, or any specified functions, necessary and incidental to the management and care of an estate and such other functions as the NSW Trustee and Guardian may direct or authorise the manager to have or exercise;

  4. Give a manager such directions in respect of the orders, authorities and directions authorised as the NSW Trustee and Guardian thinks fit.

SUMMARY OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE

  1. The Tribunal received various documents from NSW Trustee and Guardian and Lana in relation to the current application. Although the Tribunal has considered each of the documents received, only those that are of particular relevance to the Tribunal’s decision are recounted herein.

  2. The Tribunal was provided with a Private Management Report prepared by the representative on behalf of the NSW Trustee and Guardian, dated 17 December 2024 (“the TAG Report”).

  3. The TAG Report outlines the following:

  1. Directions and authorities were issued to Lana on 21 May 2018.

  2. Maria has substantial assets, including:

  1. Funds held in an Australian bank totalling approximately $340,000;

  2. Shares with the Australian Bank valued at approximately $835,000;

  3. Real property situated in Sydney North Shore, valued at approximately $785,000.

  1. Maria’s annual payments towards “personal living expenses” were recorded as $7,962.06.

  2. During the operation of the order Lana has submitted various Change in Estate requests to the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

  3. On 1 February 2024, the NSW Trustee rejected a Change in Estate requested by Lana involving expenditure of $25,000 from Maria’s estate for Maria, Lana and Lana’s husband to travel to Taiwan for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment for Maria. This decision was made following the engagement of an Authorised Visitor.

  4. The decision made on 1 February 2024 was affirmed following an Internal Review of Decision, with a further direction made for Lana to engage Maria with a Geriatrician in Sydney.

  5. It has since been discovered by the NSW Trustee and Guardian that Lana failed to comply with the decision made. The NSW Trustee and Guardian has obtained records from the Australian bank which identify that funds in excess of $43,000 have been transferred from Maria’s bank account to a travel card, with there being no record of a travel card being held in Maria’s name.

  1. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Authorised Visitor Assessment Report, prepared by a Clinical Psychologist, dated 20 January 2024 (“the Authorised Visitor Report”).

  2. The Authorised Visitor Report outlines the following:

  1. Lana and her husband have lived with Maria since 2018 under the conditions of a Carer Visa (subclass 836).

  2. Lana and her husband proposed to accompany Maria to Taiwan for the purpose of securing guardianship under Taiwanese law and thereafter to access medical services at the Kaohsiung Veteran’s General Hospital, Centre for Geriatrics and Gerontology.

  3. Although Lana identified that the intention of the trip was to “seek medical treatment overseas,” she was vague about any anticipated treatment, including the nature of the treatment or the time frame involved. Lana asserted that it was not possible to obtain the help and support Maria requires in Australia.

  4. Lana has not sought appropriate medical treatment for Maria in Australia during the last five years, reporting that she has saved Maria nearly $200,000 by not engaging such care. The Authorised Visitor states:

“It is difficult to reconcile Lana’s statement ‘Aunty [Maria]’s life and health are of top priority, I cannot give up applying for [Maria] to seek medical treatment overseas’ (sic) with the fact that [Maria]. Does not appear to have received appropriate medical treatment in Australia.”

  1. It is reported that Maria is opposed to medical intervention, and the Authorised Visitor “cannot see why she would comply with the same intervention in Taiwan”.

  2. Comprehensive overseas travel insurance would be essential should Maria travel to Taiwan, and it is unlikely that such approval would be given on account of Maria’s medical status. Lana was opposed to obtaining overseas travel insurance for Maria.

  3. The Authorised Visitor raises concerns about Maria’s ability to cope with the flight and the suitability of any accommodation that would need to be sourced for Maria in Taiwan (including that hotel accommodation would not be suitable).

  4. Lana expressed a belief that “travelling is good for dementia”. The Authorised Visitor disagrees with Lana’s assertion, reporting that “it is likely that any extended stay away from the familiarity of her home environment, is likely to trigger behaviours a degree of distress to the extent that external help and intervention would be necessary”.

  5. The Authorised Visitor makes the following conclusions and recommendations:

“Without comprehensive overseas travel insurance (medical), travel to Taiwan, along with residency there (for a period of some months) is contra-indicated;

[Maria]’s likely compliance and co-operation with any proposed medical treatment in Taiwan is questionable;

[Maria] requires comprehensive assessment by a psycho-geriatrician (with recommendations for suitable treatment options in Sydney);

Exploration of respite care options for [Maria] so that [Lana] is temporarily relieved of the care of her aunt and thereby able to have a holiday with her husband;

In conclusion, in my opinion, Maria has an unstable medical condition which precludes her both from overseas travel by air and/or an extended stay overseas away from the security of her own home environment with access to appropriate services.”

  1. The Tribunal was provided a copy of the Internal Review of Decision dated 1 March 2024 and made by Mr Dennis, Manager, Estate Management (“the Internal Review”).

  2. The Internal Review includes the following comments:

“In reviewing the above decision and requestors review request, I have applied the General Principles of Section 39 of NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 primarily:

(a) the welfare and interests of such persons should be given paramount consideration,

And guided by this General Principle, I note that the Authorised Visitor’s Report clearly indicates that travel is not possible under the present circumstances for [Maria] and, therefore, not in her best interests.

I conclude that while [Lana] (and her husband) has been caring for [Maria] for more than five years - noting [Lana]’s care with [Maria]’s money – [Maria] must see a psychogeriatrician here in Sydney to determine appropriate treatment/s and care for [Maria], and to also provide [Lana] and her husband with time for holidays.

It is clear that [Lana] needs to access appropriate local medical professional assistance to make sure that the care being provided is best adapted to [Maria] and her circumstances. This has not happened to date and, therefore, no trip can be considered as [Maria]’s reactions to travel, and stays in unknown environments, cannot be determined.”

  1. The Internal Review records the following decision:

“I affirm the decision made by [the NSW Trustee and Guardian representative], made on 1 February 2024 to decline the proposed travel. While affordable for [Maria]’s estate it is not her best interests or welfare and that the Authorised Visitor has detailed that [Maria] does not have the capacity to travel.

I add to the decision that [Lana] must follow the Authorised Visitor’s recommendation that Maria receives a comprehensive assessment, by a local Sydney psycho-geriatrician, to provide suitable treatment options in Sydney so that appropriate respite care options for [Maria] can provide [Lana] (and her husband) with temporary relief from her aunt’s care so that [Lana] is able to take holidays with her husband.”

  1. The Tribunal was provided (by NSW Trustee and Guardian) with a number of bank statements from Maria’s Australian bank accounts (accounts ending …937, …805, …478 and …404 for the period (various dates in) May 2024 to 9 December 2024 (“the [Bank] Statements”).

  2. The Bank Statements identify the following transfers from Maria’s account ending …805 with transaction details recorded as “[Australian Bank] TRAVEL MONEY [Details removed for publication] to a Travel Money Card”:

  1. Payment on 20 June 2024 of $6,000;

  2. Payment on 3 August 2024 of $6,000;

  3. Payment on 10 September 2024 of $6,000;

  4. Payment on 18 October 2024 of $5,000;

  5. Payment on 11 November 2024 of $5,000;

  6. Payment on 9 December 2024 of $6,000.

  1. The TAG Report outlines that similar payments were made prior to May 2024, however statements regarding those earlier transactions were not before the Tribunal.

  2. Lana provided the Tribunal with a letter from the Department of Home Affairs dated 27 June 2024 (“the DHA letter”). The DHA letter outlines that on 23 June 2024 Lana applied for a Visitor (class FA) Visitor (Tourist) (subclass 600) visa, and that this application was refused on 27 June 2024. The application was made for a tourist visa for a period of 3 months.

  3. Lana provided the Tribunal with what appear to be receipts, though the documents provided were not in English. At the Hearing, Lana confirmed with the Tribunal that the documents are receipts for payments made regarding medical/allied health treatment obtained for Maria in Taiwan. Those receipts indicate expenditure of NTD $2,698 on 12 December 2024 (roughly equivalent to AUD $129) and NTD $5,412 on 26 December 2024 (roughly equivalent to AUD $259).

SUMMARY OF ORAL EVIDENCE

  1. The NSW Trustee and Guardian representative provided evidence on behalf of NSW Trustee and Guardian; however, her oral evidence was largely confirming the confirming the contents of the written evidence provided to the Tribunal, with no significant additional evidence provided orally.

  2. Lana provided oral evidence to the Tribunal. Lana’s oral evidence was often tangential or of limited relevance to the questions asked by the Tribunal. It was often difficult for the Tribunal to discern the nature of the evidence intended to be provided by Lana. At one point during the Hearing the Tribunal was required to ascertain from Patrick whether there are any concern’s regarding Lana’s cognitive function on account of the manner in which she presented her evidence. Patrick denied that there are any concerns for his mother regarding cognitive impairment, commenting words to the effect of “she has always been like this”.

  3. Notwithstanding the difficulty in following Lana’s oral evidence at times, the Tribunal was able to clearly ascertain the following:

  1. Lana confirmed that she was aware of the decision made by NSW Trustee and Guardian, both the initial decision made on 1 February 2024, and the Internal Review decision made on 1 March 2024.

  2. Lana informed the Tribunal that she and Maria departed Australia on 31 March 2024, arriving in Taiwan on 1 April 2024.

  3. Lana informed the Tribunal that Maria’s travel to Taiwan was initially intended to be temporary, however she is “getting worse” and Lana is unsure whether Maria will be in a position to return to Australia.

  4. Lana maintained her position that it was necessary for Maria to travel to Taiwan to obtain appropriate medical treatment, though the exact nature of that treatment was not clear to the Tribunal. Lana outlined that Maria is in the “late stages of dementia” and that she is “getting better care in Taiwan”. She queried why Maria “can’t use her own money” to access this treatment.

  5. In response to the concerns identified by NSW Trustee and Guardian, Lana told the Tribunal “I don’t understand what they are worried about.”

  1. Lana informed the Tribunal that the use of a Travel Card was necessary because Maria’s Australian bank cards could not be used in Taiwan. The rationale for this was not clear to the Tribunal.

  2. Lana denied having used Maria’s funds to pay for Lana and her husband’s travel expenses, asserting that these expenses were paid from Lana’s personal bank account.

  1. The Tribunal attempted to summarise the legal implications of significant concerns raised by the NSW Trustee and Guardian. The Tribunal noted that on the face of the evidence Lana appears to have demonstrated a complete disregard for the scope of her authority and the legislative role of the NSW Trustee and Guardian. In response to these observations Lana provided evidence as follows:

  1. Lana denied that she has failed to comply with the authorities and directions of NSW Trustee and Guardian. She outlined that she has always sought authority when needed and has always followed restrictions imposed on her by the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

  2. Lana denied that she required authority from NSW Trustee and Guardian to incur the expenses currently subject to challenge. She outlined that she has been following the guidance provided in the Private Manager’s Handbook, and that there are no restrictions on her using Maria’s funds for the payment of daily expenses and medical expenses. Lana asserted that this was the nature of the disputed transactions.

  1. Lana maintained her position that “the most important thing is [Maria]’s wellbeing” and recounted the differences between the Australian medical system and the Taiwanese medical system in attempting to justify why it had been necessary for Maria to travel to Taiwan.

  2. Lana asserted that Maria is being disadvantaged by the involvement of the NSW Trustee and Guardian, describing their “office” as “dysfunctional”.

  3. Patrick provided evidence to the effect that he does not support Lana continuing in the role as Maria’s financial manager. It was not clear to the Tribunal, however, whether this position was a consequence of concerns regarding Lana’s management of Maria’s affairs, or the impact Lana’s appointment has had on her own wellbeing.

CONSIDERATION

  1. Lana expressed a desire to continue as Maria’s financial manager, and accordingly her appointment cannot be revoked on the basis that she seeks revocation. It is, therefore, necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether it would be in Maria’s best interests for Lana’s appointment to be revoked.

  2. For the avoidance of doubt the Tribunal notes that these proceedings are not a review of the decision made by the NSW Trustee and Guardian on 1 February 2024, confirmed on internal review on 1 March 2024. Whilst Lana clearly disagrees with the decision made by the NSW Trustee and Guardian, on the face of the material provided to the Tribunal that decision has not been the subject of administrative review and has not been set aside or varied. Accordingly, pursuant to s 25M of the Guardianship Act, Lana was required to exercise the functions of her appointment as financial manager in accordance with the directions issued by the NSW Trustee and Guardian, even if she did not agree with those directions.

  3. Lana denies that she has failed to comply with the directions and authorities of the NSW Trustee and Guardian. In support of this position Lana asserts that the expenses incurred on Maria’s behalf whilst in Taiwan were for the payment of Maria’s day to day expenses, and in accordance with the guidance provided in the Private Manager’s Handbook [1] , Lana was not required to obtain the approval of the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

    1.

  4. On page 11 of the Private Manager’s Handbook, under the heading “Spending”, it states:

“The Directions and Authorities gives you the power to meet a range of day-to-day expenses on behalf of the managed person. These expenses include:

●    General living costs such as accommodation, care and medical expenses.”

  1. Elsewhere in the Private Manager’s Handbook (page 10 under the heading “Key Duties”) it states:

“As a private manager, you also have specific obligations relating to the oversight of your financial management by NSW Trustee and Guardian. These are:

●    Following any directions given by us

…

●    Ensuring that at all times you keep the managed person’s financial affairs separate from your own, including using separate bank accounts in the managed person’s name

●    Seeking prior approval from us for expenditure other than day-to-day expenses”

  1. The Tribunal simply cannot accept Lana’s assertions that the funds transferred to the Travel Money Card were used exclusively for the payment of Maria’s day to day expenses for the following reasons:

  1. The evidence provided by the NSW Trustee and Guardian outlines that in excess of AUD $43,000 has been transferred from Maria’s Australian bank account to the Travel Money Card.

  2. The evidence provided by Lana justifies expenditure of approximately AUD $388 on medical expenses for Maria in December 2024.

  3. Maria’s annual personal living expenses (groceries, entertainment, transport, medical) for the reporting year ending May 2024 (whilst living in Australia) were $7,962.06, well below the amount in question. There was no explanation provided by Lana with respect to the significantly inflated expenses.

  4. Maria’s bank accounts identify that during her absence from the country she has continued to be responsible for the payment of various accommodation expenses, property expenses and utilities in Australia. In the Tribunal’s view, Maria’s “day-to-day” expenses include maintaining her property in Australia, and do not extend to the payment of expenses for additional accommodation, which would constitute a discretionary expense.

  1. At Hearing, it was evident that Lana and Maria are residing in Taiwan in apartment-style accommodation (not a hotel). There is no evidence to suggest that authority has been obtained from NSW Trustee and Guardian for a lease or similar to be entered into in Maria’s name, or for her estate to be applied towards rental payments over and above her usual accommodation expenses. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that the financial management order does not have extra-territorial effect, and would not necessarily prevent Maria from entering into an overseas lease agreement, the funds held in her Australian bank account are subject to management and could not be applied for this purpose without approval from NSW Trustee and Guardian.

  2. Even if the Tribunal is wrong in relation to the appropriate classification of Maria’s expenses whilst residing in Taiwan, Lana’s argument that she was acting within the scope of her authority cannot succeed for the following reasons:

  1. To the extent that Lana has relied on a general authority to be permitted to pay day-to-day expenses on Maria’s behalf without the need to obtain further authority, such general authority was displaced by the decision made by the NSW Trustee and Guardian on 1 February 2024 and confirmed by internal review on 1 March 2024.

  2. Lana was provided an explicit direction by the NSW Trustee and Guardian to the effect that she was not permitted to incur expenses on Maria’s behalf in relation to travel to Taiwan, accommodation in Taiwan, and the provision of medical care in Taiwan.

  3. Lana, with knowledge of the decision made by NSW Trustee and Guardian, has acted with complete disregard of the decision and incurred expenses that far exceed Maria’s ordinary day-to-day expenses on matters where authority to incur such expenses has been explicitly and categorically refused by NSW Trustee and Guardian.

  1. Further concerns are identified by the Tribunal with respect to Lana’s use of the Travel Money Card as follows:

  1. The Tribunal accepts the evidence provided by NSW Trustee and Guardian that the Travel Money Card is not held in Maria’s name.

  2. Assuming that the Travel Money Card is held in Lana’s name (or some other third party), there was no approval sought from the NSW Trustee and Guardian to deplete Maria’s estate in the vicinity of $43,000 by transferring those funds to another person.

  3. In the event that the Travel Money Card is held in Lana’s name, she has failed to comply with her obligation to keep her affairs and Maria’s affairs separate.

  4. The Tribunal understands that by using the Travel Money Card for the payment of expenses there is a lack of transparency and accountability with respect to the obligation to lodge accounts with the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

  1. A further complication in the matter relates to the ability or otherwise of either Lana or Maria to return to Australia. As outlined above, Lana asserts that due to a decline in Maria’s health it may not be possible for her to return to Australia.

  2. On the written evidence provided by Lana it is evident that there are restrictions around her ability to return to Australia. As at the time of the meeting with the Authorised Visitor it was reported that Lana was residing in Australia under a Carer Visa (subclass 836). As at 27 June 2024, Lana had been denied a Tourist Visa (subclass 600). There was no evidence provided to the Tribunal as to why Lana was required to apply for a Tourist Visa to enter Australia if she were otherwise entitled to re-enter Australia under her Carer Visa. The Tribunal infers from this evidence that Lana’s Carer Visa no longer remains valid (perhaps as a consequence of Maria’s removal from Australia).

  3. The Tribunal is concerned that Lana has demonstrated wilful non-compliance with the decision made by the NSW Trustee and Guardian and disregard for the role of the NSW Trustee and Guardian in the appropriate oversight of Maria’s affairs. The fact that she disagreed with the decision of the NSW Trustee and Guardian and believed that the expenditure would be in Maria’s interests does not justify her actions.

  4. Should Lana be permitted to continue to manage Maria’s affairs contrary to the directions and authorities of the NSW Trustee and Guardian, her absence from Australia raises significant barriers to the ability of NSW Trustee and Guardian to take appropriate recourse for the protection of Maria’s estate.

  5. Although Lana expressed a desire to continue in the management of Maria’s estate, her conduct to date demonstrates a fundamental inability to fulfil the practical and legal requirements of her appointment as financial manager. In these circumstances the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that Lana continues to be a suitable person to be appointed as Maria’s financial manager.

  6. In light of the above finding, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is in Maria’s best interests for Lana’s appointment as financial manager to be revoked. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is in Maria’s best interests for her estate to be managed by a person or entity who is able to fully comply with the legal requirements associated with such management.

  7. There was no evidence to suggest that Maria has become capable of managing her affairs. Indeed, the Tribunal’s observations on Maria during the Hearing were consistent with a person living with advanced dementia, and this was not in dispute at Hearing.

  8. Despite Maria’s absence from the country (whether that be on a permanent or temporary basis), Maria continues to hold significant assets in New South Wales. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make a financial management order is retained.

  9. Having revoked Lana’s appointment as financial manager, and there being no other suitable person to be appointed to the role, the Tribunal decided to commit the management of Maria’s estate to the NSW Trustee and Guardian.

**********

Endnote

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: 23 July 2025

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0