PS v The Public Guardian - [2017] QCATA 54

CITATION:

PS v The Public Guardian [2017] QCATA 54

PARTIES:	PS (Applicant)
v
The Public Guardian (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL037-16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM
Professor Ashman, Member

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – MENTAL HEALTH – GUARDIANS, COMMITTEE, ADMINISTRATORS, MANAGERS AND RECEIVERS – APPOINTMENT – where Public Guardian appointed for adult – where Public Guardian restricted contact with previous long term carer – where long term carer challenged appointment of Public Guardian and contact decision – where tribunal dismissed carer’s application – whether tribunal erred – whether grounds for appeal

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) s 80
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32

CGB (No 2) [2016] QCAT 089
SS v Public Guardian [2015] QCATA 142

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The adult CGB was the subject of two matters PS brought to the Tribunal at a hearing on 16 December 2015. She applied to be joined as an active party in the proceedings and sought directions to be given to CGB’s guardian because she alleged that the aged care facility in which he resided was providing inadequate care.
This brings us to the hearing of 16 December 2015. The Tribunal dismissed both applications. In the first matter, the Tribunal found that PS was already an active party as she was the applicant. In the second matter, the Tribunal established that PS sought contact with CGB as his carer and having taken extensive evidence from PS, a representative of the Public Guardian, the Separate Representative appointed for CGB, and CGB’s administrator, the second application was dismissed.
PS wants to appeal the second decision and, as an interested party, is entitled to do so.[1] She states that the Tribunal did not give sufficient weight to her years of caring for CGB and that she was overwhelmed by other legal representatives attending the hearing and could not give reasons why she should have been joined as an active party or why directions should be given to the Public Guardian in regard to contact with CGB. She seeks the Tribunal’s order be set aside and directions given to the Public Guardian to allow her contact with CGB.
[1]Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 80.
PS says the tribunal did not give enough weight to her years of experience in caring for CGB. She says that she was overwhelmed by the tribunal hearing and, therefore, was not able to put her case to the tribunal. She has referred the appeal tribunal to SS v Public Guardian[2] in support of her application for leave to appeal.
[2][2015] QCATA 142.

Background

A brief history is necessary to put PS’s present appeal application into context.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read PS v The Public Guardian and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] QCATA 54
Decision Date: 8 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

PS sought judicial review of a decision made by the Public Guardian, who was appointed to make decisions on their behalf. The Public Guardian had restricted contact between PS and their former long-term carer, and PS challenged both the appointment and the decision to restrict contact. The tribunal dismissed the application, and PS sought to appeal the decision.

The primary issue was whether the tribunal had erred in law in dismissing PS's application for judicial review. The appeal hinged on whether there were any grounds for the tribunal to have made different decisions. The court considered whether the tribunal had applied the correct legal principles and whether it had acted within its jurisdiction.

The court found that the tribunal had not erred in law and that the decisions made were within its jurisdiction. The tribunal had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had not acted beyond its authority. The court determined that there were no grounds for the tribunal to have made different decisions and dismissed the appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the tribunal's decision. The Public Guardian's appointment and the decision to restrict contact were upheld. The court found no error in the tribunal's process or decision-making, and the appeal was therefore unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal is dismissed.

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.