PSE v Public Guardian

Case [2021] QCATA 10


QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

PSE v Public Guardian & Anor [2021] QCATA 10

PARTIES:

PSE
(applicant/appellant)

v

PUBLIC GUARDIAN
LBN

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL007-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

GAA8871-17 Review of the Appointment of a Guardian

GAA9970-17 Review of the Appointment of a Guardian

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

22 January 2021

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Guthrie
Member Allen

ORDERS:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW – DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE – where the Tribunal continued the appointment of a guardian –  where applicant alleged that she was not given the opportunity to respond – where applicant seeks to appeal on grounds of  procedural fairness – where the Appeal Tribunal found the Tribunal weighed the evidence before it and made findings supported by the evidence – where the Appeal Tribunal found the Tribunal below conducted a fair hearing – where the appeal was dismissed

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) ss 15, 31(4), 130(1)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 3, 28(1), 28(3)(a), 28(3)(d), 142(1), 142(3)(b)

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
PL v PT & Ors [2018] QCATA 114
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent: 

J Nagabbo and A Midgley of the Public Guardian

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. PSE has filed an application for leave to appeal and appeal a decision of the Tribunal which, on 5 December 2017, decided to continue the appointment of the Public Guardian as guardian for PSE’s son, LBN, for decisions about the following personal matters:

    (a)Accommodation;

    (b)With whom LBN has contact and/or visits;

    (c)Health care; and

    (d)Provision of services including in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

    This appointment was reviewable and was to be reviewed in one year.

  2. We have considered the application for leave to appeal or appeal, the submissions filed by the applicant and received by the Appeal Tribunal on 10 July 2018 (including the documents provided with the submissions) as well as the oral submissions made at the hearing. We have also considered the transcript of the Tribunal hearing and the transcript of the oral reasons provided to the Tribunal. The respondents did not make submissions in the appeal. 

    Legislative Framework

  3. An appeal on a question of law is as of right.[1] An appeal on a question of fact or mixed law and fact may only be made with the leave of the Appeal Tribunal.[2]

    [1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) s 142(1).

    [2]QCAT Act s 142(3)(b).

  4. The relevant principles to be applied in determining whether…

Continue reading PSE v Public Guardian

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
PSE v Public Guardian [2021] QCATA 10
Case
[2021] QCATA 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of PSE v Public Guardian, the dispute involved an appeal against a decision made by a Tribunal which had continued the appointment of a guardian. The applicant, PSE, contended that she was not given the opportunity to respond to certain evidence presented, which she claimed breached principles of natural justice. The appeal was heard and determined by the Appeal Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Appeal Tribunal centred on whether the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in appointing the guardian and whether it had adhered to the principles of natural justice in doing so. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's procedural fairness rights were violated by not allowing her to respond to particular evidence. The appeal was grounded on the allegation that the Tribunal's handling of the case did not allow the applicant to adequately defend herself.

The Appeal Tribunal examined the evidence and found that the Tribunal had considered the evidence presented and made findings that were adequately supported by that evidence. The Tribunal had provided the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the evidence, and the Appeal Tribunal was satisfied that this process was fair. Consequently, the Appeal Tribunal concluded that the Tribunal had not erred in its application of the principles of natural justice and dismissed the appeal.

The Appeal Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal, affirming the original decision of the Tribunal to continue the appointment of the guardian.

Orders

Orders of the court

The 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.