ML

Case [2019] QCAT 232


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

  1. 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.

  2. The cost assessor filed a certificate in the Tribunal as to the assessed costs on 30 November 2018.

  3. 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

Details
AGLC
ML [2019] QCAT 232
Case
[2019] QCAT 232
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between ML and others was considered by the Family Court of Australia. The dispute primarily revolved around the custody of a child, with ML seeking changes to existing parenting orders. The respondents, MC and MJR, opposed these changes, arguing that the existing orders were in the best interest of the child.

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.