MJ v MET & Ors

Case [2022] QCATA 180


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

TCN v Public Guardian & Anor [2022] QCATA 158

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
MJ v MET [2022] QCATA 180
Case
[2022] QCATA 180
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are MJ and MET, with additional respondents MK and another party. The dispute pertains to the management and administration of property of individuals with impaired capacity, specifically concerning costs awarded and sought in appeals. The matter was heard in the court of appeal. The central legal issues the court addressed were whether particular costs provisions applied and the appropriateness of the tribunal's costs orders.

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.