QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
MJ v MET & Ors [2022] QCATA 180
PARTIES:
MJ (appellant/respondent to applications for costs)
v
MET
mk(respondents to appeal / applicants for costs)
The Public Guardian
The Public Trustee of Queensland
(respondents to appeal)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL338-20, APL220-21
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NOS:
GAA4527-20, GAA4529-20, GAA6922-20, GAA6924-20
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
7 December 2022
HEARING DATE:
12 May 2022
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Acting Senior Member Kanowski
ORDERS:
APL220-21
1. Leave to appeal is granted for grounds 3 and 4.
2. Leave to appeal is refused for grounds 1, 2 and 5.
3. The appeal is allowed on grounds 3 and 4.
4. The tribunal’s costs orders made on 30 July 2021 are set aside.
5. MET must repay to MJ the amount he has paid to her under the costs order made on 30 July 2021, within 28 days of this order.
6. MK must repay to MJ the amount he has paid to him under the costs order made on 30 July 2021, within 28 days of this order.
7. The applications by MET and MK for costs in the proceedings at first instance are returned to the tribunal, differently constituted, for reconsideration.
APL338-20 and APL220-21: costs applications in the appeals
8. The application for costs by MET in APL338-20 and for the stay application in APL220-21 is refused.
9. The application for costs by MK in APL338-20 and for the stay application in APL220-21 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – where costs awarded – where costs sought in appeals – whether particular costs provisions apply
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld)
Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
Ericson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 297
Mulcahy v Mulcahy [2019] QCATA 182
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
RJG [2016] QCAT 127
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
MJ:
Self-represented
Respondents:
MET represented by Mackey Wales Law
MK represented by Keir Steele Waldon, Lawyers
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
The matters for decision are:
(a)in APL220-21, an appeal against a costs order made by the tribunal; and
(b)in APL338-20 and APL220-21, whether a party should be ordered to pay costs in appeal proceedings.
The same parties are involved in both matters. They include the following, who will be referred to by pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the ‘adult’[1] who has been the subject of the proceedings:
(a)the adult is an elderly woman who will be referred to as MET;
(b)one of MET’s sons, who will be referred to as MK; and
(c)one of MET’s grandsons, who will be referred to as MJ.
[1]As that term is used in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld). The term ‘principal’ is…
Continue reading MJ v MET & Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- MJ v MET [2022] QCATA 180
- Case
- [2022] QCATA 180
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the tribunal's decision on costs and the specific provisions that govern such matters. It determined that certain grounds of appeal warranted further examination while dismissing others. The court found that the tribunal's costs orders made on 30 July 2021 were not in accordance with the relevant legal principles, leading to the decision to set aside those orders. Consequently, MET and MK were required to repay the amounts they had previously paid to MJ under those orders. Additionally, the court ruled that the applications for costs in the initial proceedings should be reconsidered by a differently constituted tribunal.
The court concluded that the appeals on specific grounds were valid, leading to the allowance of the appeal on those grounds. It also set aside the tribunal's costs orders and mandated repayment by MET and MK within a specified timeframe. The applications for costs in the appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded to MET or MK for the appeals. This decision provides clarity on the application of costs provisions in cases involving the management and administration of property of persons with impaired capacity.
Orders
Orders of the court
APL220-21
1. Leave to appeal is granted for grounds 3 and 4.
2. Leave to appeal is refused for grounds 1, 2 and 5.
3. The appeal is allowed on grounds 3 and 4.
4. The tribunal’s costs orders made on 30 July 2021 are set aside.
5. MET must repay to MJ the amount he has paid to her under the costs order made on 30 July 2021, within 28 days of this order.
6. MK must repay to MJ the amount he has paid to him under the costs order made on 30 July 2021, within 28 days of this order.
7. The applications by MET and MK for costs in the proceedings at first instance are returned to the tribunal, differently constituted, for reconsideration.
APL338-20 and APL220-21: costs applications in the appeals
8. The application for costs by MET in APL338-20 and for the stay application in APL220-21 is refused.
9. The application for costs by MK in APL338-20 and for the stay application in APL220-21 is refused.
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.