QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
ML [2019] QCAT 232
APPLICATION NO/S: GAA295-19; GAA4914-19 MATTER TYPE:
Guardianship and administration matters for adults
DELIVERED ON:
13 August 2019
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Endicott
ORDERS: 1. The applications by MC are dismissed.
2. The applications by MJR are dismissed.
3. The application by MJR for costs is refused.
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
CATCHWORDS: GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – OTHER MATTERS – where a final costs order made against a party in favour of an attorney of a principal now deceased – where further orders were sought relating to the enforcement of the costs order – where the Tribunal has no enforcement powers of costs orders – where orders sought for the production of documents by the attorney to the Tribunal – where no current proceeding about the deceased principal was pending before the Tribunal – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make orders being sought – whether the applications should be dismissed as lacking in substance
GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – OTHER MATTERS – Where a former attorney seeking orders to restrain further applications being filed in the Tribunal – where a former attorney seeking a penalty to be imposed on an applicant for providing false or misleading information to the Tribunal – where a former attorney seeking costs when his own applications were not completely successful –whether the Tribunal has powers to make orders to restrain and penalise an applicant – whether the Tribunal’s discretion should be exercised not to award costs
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 115(2), Schedule 4
Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld), s125
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 62, s 131, s 132, s 216
REASONS FOR DECISION
ML had been the subject of various applications to this Tribunal from August 2016 under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld). ML died in March 2017. An order was made by the Tribunal on 23 March 2017 that MC pay MJR’s costs of the applications filed before but heard shortly after the death of ML. Costs were to be assessed by an assessor agreed to by the parties and failing agreement, the Tribunal would make an appointment of the assessor. As the parties did not agree as to an assessor, the Tribunal made an order on 22 November 2017 appointing an assessor.
The cost assessor filed a certificate in the Tribunal as to the assessed costs on 30 November 2018.
MC filed an application in the Tribunal on 4 December 2018 seeking an order that the Tribunal give directions to MJR to substantiate that he had paid the costs of his legal representatives, relative to the proceedings in the assessment, from his own funds. MC also sought a direction that MJR produce specified documents to the…
Continue reading ML
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- ML [2019] QCAT 232
- Case
- [2019] QCAT 232
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to address included whether the proposed changes to the parenting orders would be in the best interest of the child and whether the respondents' applications for costs should be granted. The court had to consider the child's welfare and the ability of the parents to provide for that welfare in the context of the current orders.
The court found that the proposed changes to the parenting orders would not be in the best interest of the child, based on the evidence presented. The court also rejected the respondents' applications for costs, stating that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant such an award. Consequently, the applications by both MC and MJR were dismissed, and the application for costs was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applications by MC are dismissed.
2. The applications by MJR are dismissed.
3. The application by MJR for costs 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.