MD
[2012] QCAT 276
•29 June 2012
| CITATION: | MD [2012] QCAT 276 |
| PARTIES: | MD |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA4956-12 / GAA4957-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | S Gardiner, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 29 June 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for review of the appointment of guardians and an administrator for MD is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION – review sought of appointments – no new or changed circumstances – Practice Direction 8 of 2010 not satisfied – application lacks substance – early end to proceedings Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties in accordance with section 32(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 14 February 2012, after a three hour tribunal hearing, GT was appointed as guardian for MD for all guardianship matters except contact and/or visits until further order of the tribunal, to be reviewed in 5 years. The Adult Guardian was appointed as guardian for MD for decisions about contact and/or visits until further order, to be reviewed in 3 years. GT was also appointed as MD’s administrator for all financial matters until further order of the tribunal to be reviewed in 5 years.
On 21 March 2012, 5 weeks after the long term decision was made by the tribunal, MD’s father MI (an applicant in the original hearing) lodged an application with the tribunal seeking a review of the February appointments. MI sought the review on the basis that he had further information to give to the tribunal, some of which he said was available but not presented at the hearing and some of which had happened after the February hearing.
Notice of the review applications with all supporting material was provided to GT and responses sought. These written responses were provided to the tribunal and based on the application and the responses, the issue for the tribunal is whether there has been any change in circumstances relevant to the requirements of Practice Direction 8 of 2010, sufficient to require a review hearing of appointments made 5 weeks prior to the application being received.
The tribunal’s Practice Direction 8 of 2010 is important. The following terms are relevant:
4. A review of an appointment of a guardian and/or an administrator made by the Tribunal will be conducted at the end of the period of the appointment as ordered by the Tribunal except in cases where:
(i)New and relevant information has become available since the hearing; or
(ii)A relevant change in circumstances has occurred since the hearing; or
(iii)Relevant information that was not presented to the Tribunal at the hearing has become available;
And in accordance with s.31 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000:
(iv) the current appointee is no longer competent; or
(v) another person is more appropriate for appointment.
5. The Tribunal may hear and dismiss on the papers an application requesting a review of appointment of a guardian and/or administrator which the Tribunal determines does not disclose the information required in paragraph 4 of this practice direction.
Most of MI’s submissions focussed on the ongoing and intense conflict that exists between himself and GT. This conflict extends to GT’s family and support group. This conflict was very evident at the hearing on 14 February. There have been applications made in another jurisdiction as a result of this conflict. MI complains that GT was aware of applications made in another jurisdiction but did not inform the tribunal of their existence at the February hearing. These proceedings do not involve any orders concerning contact between MI and his son. There is no change in circumstances concerning contact arrangements from the hearing some 5 weeks earlier that would warrant a review of the current appointments.
There certainly had not been any change since the February hearing to the level of animosity displayed by MI towards GT. As this high level of distrust exists, it is to be expected that there will be some further issues arising between these parties over communication. Having acknowledged this, MI produces no independent evidence to show that any health professional has refused him information on the direction of GT, other than his own assertions. The tribunal expects GT to abide her obligations as guardian in this matter – that is, to ensure that all of MD’s medical providers are aware that they can talk to and provide information to MI and to ensure that all health professionals are informed of her consent to MI obtaining information concerning MD’s treatments.
MI also complains that GT has not provided particular information to the tribunal concerning MD’s financial matters. MI is not the reviewing authority in this regard – that is the responsibility of this tribunal. These requirements have been attended to by GT and evidence submitted to this tribunal concerning them. GT does not stand in breach of any matters concerning her administration of MD’s affairs.
MI had not provided any additional evidence that he would be more appropriate than GT as a decision maker for MD or given the level of distrust that exists, that a joint appointment is appropriate or even workable.
Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 gives the tribunal power to bring a proceeding to an early end if the tribunal considers that an application is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or is lacking in substance or is otherwise an abuse of process.
[10] The applications filed by MI should be brought to an end as he has failed to provide information to satisfy the requirements of Practice Direction 8 of 2010. The application cannot proceed to a hearing for determination on its merits and is lacking in substance. The appointment of guardians for MD has been made for periods of 3 and 5 years respectively and of the administrator for 5 years. Those long term appointments will continue unless new and relevant circumstances warrant an earlier review. Such circumstances have not yet been established.
[11] The application for review of the appointments of the guardian and the administrator for MD must be dismissed under section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
0
0
0