PB

The case involves PB and the Public Advocate, who is currently PB's administrator and guardian. The dispute is over whether PB requires both an administration order and a guardianship order. The case was heard by the Supreme Court. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether PB was unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate, and whether PB was in need of oversight, care, or control in the interests of his own health and safety.

The court found that PB was not currently unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate, and that there was no basis for the appointment of an administrator at present. However, the court did find that PB was in need of oversight, care, or control in the interests of his own health and safety, and that he was in need of a guardian. The court concluded that the Public Advocate should be appointed PB's guardian with limited powers of guardianship, specifically making services decisions and contact decisions. The court also ordered that the guardianship order be reviewed in five years, by 9 October 2025, and that an application may be made for an earlier review of the guardianship order or for the making of an administration order if PB's circumstances change.