PV v NSW Trustee and Guardian

[2016] NSWCATAD 259

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	PV v NSW Trustee & Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 259
Hearing dates:	30 June 2016, 22 July 2016, 10 August 2016
Date of orders:	17 November 2016
Decision date:	17 November 2016
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Leal, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) The decision of the NSW Trustee and Guardian dated 24 March 2016 is set aside. In substitution for this decision, the Tribunal orders that the NSW Trustee pay to the applicant, from the mother’s estate, the amount of $54,404, as reimbursement for medical and travel expenses incurred by the applicant. (2) The disclosure or publication of the names of the applicant and the person under management of the NSW Trustee and Guardian is prohibited. Note: A reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.
Catchwords:	NSW Trustee and Guardian – whether medical and travel expenses should be reimbursed – interests and welfare of protected person – financial management order.
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009
Cases Cited:	McDonald v Guardianship Administration Board [1993] 1 VR 521
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	PV (Applicant) NSW Trustee and Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: PV (Applicant in person) NSW Trustee and Guardian (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1610327
Publication restriction:	See order 2

Reasons for Decision

introduction

1. The applicant is a 75-year-old farmer who lives in rural NSW. In order to maintain his privacy, and in accordance with the publication restriction that applies in this matter, I will refer to him simply as PV or ‘the applicant.’

2. The applicant is the guardian for his 99-year-old mother who suffers from dementia and who will be referred to as PW or simply as ‘the mother.’ She lives in an aged care facility in Sydney. Since 2007, her financial affairs have been managed by the NSW Trustee and Guardian (‘the NSW Trustee’), who is the respondent in this matter.

3. The applicant is seeking a review of the decision made by the NSW Trustee and Guardian on 24 March 2016 to refuse to pay costs incurred by him in relation to his mother’s care.

Relevant legal matters

4. On 24 July 2007, the Guardianship Tribunal (as it then was) found that the mother was not capable of managing her affairs, that there was a need for another person to manage those affairs and that it was in her best interests that a financial management order be made. Since that time, the NSW Trustee (formerly the Protective Commissioner) has been managing the mother’s estate (that is, her financial affairs).

5. Chapter 4 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (‘the Act’) is concerned with 'management functions relating to persons incapable of managing their affairs.' Under s.56(a) of the Act, the NSW Trustee may exercise all the functions necessary and incidental to management and care of the estate of the managed person.

6. In managing the mother’s estate, the NSW Trustee is empowered to exercise a series of powers under s16 of the Act. Relevantly, these powers include settling, adjusting and compromising a demand made by or against the estate (ss16(j) and paying rates, taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, debts, obligations, costs and expenses and other outgoings (ss16(u) of the Act).

7. I am satisfied that the applicant’s claim to have his costs reimbursed by his mother’s estate amounts to a claim against the estate and that the NSW Trustee therefore has the power to consider this claim. (s16(j) of the Act).

8. Section 62 of the Act empowers an ‘affected person’ to apply to this Tribunal for an administrative review of a decision made in connection with the exercise of the NSW Trustee’s functions under the Act.

9. An ‘affected person’ includes a person whose interests are, in the opinion of this Tribunal, adversely affected by the decision. Given that the decision in question is a refusal to reimburse the applicant for his claimed costs, I am satisfied that the applicant is such an ‘affected person.’

10. In his application for review dated 31 May 2016, the applicant states that he was first notified of the decision by the NSW Trustee to refuse his claim for costs on 4 May 2016. As his application for review was received by this Tribunal on 31 May 2016, I am satisfied that he has lodged his application within time. (rule 24 of the Civil & Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014)

11. In reviewing this decision, the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the NSW Trustee and is required to make the ‘correct and preferable decision’ having regard to any relevant factual material and any applicable written or unwritten law (s63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997).

12. The review is to be conducted ‘without any presumption as to the correctness of the decision’: McDonald v Guardianship Administration Board [1993] 1 VR 521 at 530. On review the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are vested in the NSW Trustee.

13. In exercising its functions under the Act, the NSW Trustee and, on review, this Tribunal must give paramount consideration to the interests of the mother. Section 39 of the Act provides that it is the duty of everyone exercising functions under Chapter 4 of the Act (management functions relating to persons incapable of managing their affairs) to observe the following principles:

(a) the welfare and interests of such persons should be given paramount consideration,

(b) the freedom of decision and freedom of action of such persons should be restricted as little as possible,

(c) such persons should be encouraged, as far as possible, to live a normal life in the community,

(d) the views of such persons in relation to the exercise of those functions should be taken into consideration,

(e) the importance of preserving the family relationships and the cultural and linguistic environments of such persons should be recognised,

(f) such persons should be encouraged, as far as possible, to be self-reliant in matters relating to their personal, domestic and financial affairs,

(g) such persons should be protected from neglect, abuse and exploitation.’

Issues

14. In this case, the following issues must be considered:

• whether the applicant should be reimbursed for costs claimed in relation to his mother’s care;

• if so, what amount of reimbursement he should receive.

Evidence

The family circumstances

15. The applicant is the eldest of three boys, the youngest of whom died in 2014. In 2007, his mother was placed in an aged care facility in Suburb W. In 2011, she was relocated to an aged care facility in suburb K. In 2013, she was again relocated, this time to an aged care facility in suburb G where she continues to reside. There is no dispute that the applicant, who manages his rural property in NSW, comes to Sydney to visit his mother on a monthly basis.

16. In 2011, the NSW Supreme Court appointed the applicant as guardian for his mother, with the functions of accommodation, activities/outings, health care, medical and dental consent and services. In his capacity as guardian, the applicant believes it is fundamental that he visits his mother on a regular basis to ensure her care is adequate.

17. When in Sydney, the applicant lives in the family home, which he purchased from his mother in 2015. The applicant has a mortgage on the house, which he rents out to a friend of the applicant at a reduced rate.

18. In July 2015, the NSW Trustee approved a payment of $90,300 to the applicant as a reimbursement for funds the applicant had loaned to his mother to enable her to delay the sale of the family home.

19. Although the applicant has his rural property and the family home as assets, he told the Tribunal that he struggles to make a living from farming and has an annual income of approximately $5,000.

Costs claimed by the applicant.

20. The applicant had initially claimed expenses of $79,368, as incurred between 2007 to 2014.

21. During proceedings before this tribunal, the applicant varied his claim to request that $94,762 be reimbursed to him for costs incurred between 2007 and 2014, as itemised below:

Actual cost of provision of motor car [in Sydney] for the sole use and benefit of [PW] and to be located permanently at Miranda	$33,949
Medical costs paid by carer	$593
Guardianship Tribunal: hearings & disbursements	$1,250
ADT: hearings, review of decision, appeals, disbursements	$1,540
Supreme Court appearances, hearings judgements, summons, affidavits, disbursements.	$6,865
Legal advice regarding above advocacy matters	$2,330
Taxis ($30 per month x 6 years)	$2,160
Travel expenses (2007- $7987; 2008-$6807; 2009-$4605; 2010-$6815; 2011-$5233; 2012-$7848; 2013-$5230; 2014-$4154)	$46,075

22. These proceedings were adjourned to allow discussions between the applicant and the NSW Trustee to see if an agreement could be reached in relation to the applicant’s request for reimbursement of his expenses.

23. An offer was made to the applicant by the NSW Trustee but was not accepted by the applicant.

Further expenses claimed by the applicant

24. In a document faxed to the Tribunal on 27 July 2016, the applicant claimed a further $95,760 from his mother’s estate for 38 home visits between 2008 and 2011 for up to to seven days away from the care facility. According to the applicant, during this time, his mother received 24 hours a day care, which, if calculated at $15 per hour, would amount to an average cost of $2,520 per visit.

25. No further evidence has been submitted by the applicant in support of this claim.

Authorised Visitor’s Report for the mother – January 2009

26. An authorised visitor report for the mother dated January 2009 is contained on file.

27. In this report, the authorised visitor confirmed that the applicant had been taking his mother from the suburb W care facility so she could stay at the family home for approximately one week each month. According to the report:

[PW’s] visits to her house appear to have a beneficial effect and it does not appear to distress her to leave the house and return to [the care facility]…[PW] appeared to enjoy the visits home.

28. The report stated that the mother was cognitively affected in her language, orientation and behaviour and that these impairments limited the input PW is able to have regarding major decisions.

29. The report considers PV’s situation as follows:

PV visits his mother at least once a month, travelling from his property to visit her and take her to the [family home] for periods of up to 1 week. He said that he is not reimbursed for his travel and incidental costs (such as food in the house) associated with these visits, and I have recommended that he retain receipts and request reimbursement.

Independent Assessment of the mother – July 2016

30. An Independent Assessment of the mother was completed in July 2016 by the same person who prepared the 2009 Authorised Visitor’s Report, referred to above. Whilst the 2016 Independent Assessment was prepared for the NSW Trustee and is stated to be confidential, it has been tendered in these proceedings as evidence in support of this application for review.

31. In the Independent Assessment, the mother’s current physical health and functioning is described as follows:

PW is now completely immobile and reliant on staff for all her care needs. She is incontinent and requires a hoist for transfers. She spends most of her time during the day in her tub chair in which she is able to be wheeled around the facility and she was in the large common area with other residents when I visited. She is able to eat pureed food and is fed by staff.

32. According to the assessment:

PW’s dementia and the effects of her stroke have severely affected her cognitive abilities and her speech. Since her stroke in 2006, she has been unable to communicate clearly. When I visited her in 2009, she was able to respond with yes and no answers but any attempt she made to speak was largely unintelligible due to the dysphasia from her stroke. Staff have indicated that her dementia has advanced and there is now a little indication that she recognises staff nor does she respond to them.

33. In the Independent Assessment, the following views are expressed:

• because the mother is in a stable environment at her suburb G care facility, there was no ongoing need for a guardian for accommodation and that any move could be arranged without the need for a guardian;

• ensuring the quality of care a family member is receiving and advocating for that family member does not normally require the appointment of a guardian and is usually subsumed as a familial responsibility arising from a care and concern for the family member;

• to the limited extent that she is able to appreciate them, the applicant’s visits are important to PW;

• given the stable care arrangement enjoyed by PW, the applicant’s attendance is not essential but contributes to her wellbeing.

34. According to the independent assessor:

The staff at the facility indicated that PV does visit his mother probably every second month and spends several hours per day with her over the period of time that he is visiting, usually several days at a time, up to a week. The staff noted that he appears to be attentive to her, talks with her and feeds her. The file notes indicate that he does report concerns to the staff as indicated above – including about her skin, diet and treatment.

35. According to the Independent Assessment, PV would not meet the definition of a carer for his mother as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is because the type of support the applicant provides for his mother could be considered as care and caring, but not in a carer role, and so would not enable the applicant to receive a carer’s payment.

36. The Independent Assessment acknowledges that the services provided by the applicant and a female friend, who also visits the mother, could be said to be providing companion care and support to her through regular visiting and spending time with her. According to the Independent Assessment:

family and friends are not usually paid for these services and I would not think it necessary to employ additional paid companion services for PW at this time.’

37. The Independent Assessment found that

whilst PW appears to have a very limited responsiveness to others now, PV’s visits as a caring son are likely to be contributing to her quality of life.

The mother’s budget

38. As at 30 June 2016, the mother had over $600,000 in her account. According to the year to date budget report for the mother, her total annual operating expenditure is approximately $70,000.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

39. In making a decision in this matter, two issues must be considered:

• whether the applicant should be reimbursed for costs claimed in relation to his mother’s care; and

• if so, what amount of reimbursement should he receive.

40. In reviewing a decision such as this, which has been made under the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act, the principles contained in s39 of the Act (and as set out above) must be considered, with the welfare and interest of the mother being given paramount consideration.

41. I acknowledge both the views expressed in the Independent Assessment that family and friends are not usually paid for visiting and spending time with the person, and the submission by the NSW Trustee that family members should not be seen to profit financially for simply visiting their relative.

42. This is, however, an unusual situation. I accept the evidence of the applicant that whilst he owns a rural property and has taken out a mortgage to purchase the family home, the farm generates little income and because he uses the family home as accommodation when he visits his mother, he cannot rent out the house itself. Renting it to a friend for a reduced rate would seem to be a practical solution to the situation. Given the applicant’s limited income stream and the distance of his rural property from Sydney, I accept that his trips to visit his mother are financially difficult for him.

43. On the basis of the two reports before me, namely the 2009 Authorised Visitor’s Report and the 2016 Independent Assessment, I accept that the mother has few regular visitors and that despite her poor cognitive functioning, she seems to benefit from seeing the applicant.

44. On the basis of the budgetary documents before me, I accept that the mother’s financial situation is reasonable and that she is able to meet her annual expenses without difficulty and has adequate funds in her account to meet some additional expenses.

45. The applicant has claimed the following expenses for matters relating to his mother’s care:

• Medical costs;

• Guardianship Tribunal: hearings & disbursements;

• Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) proceedings: hearings, review of decision, appeals, disbursements;

• Supreme Court appearances, hearings judgements, summons, affidavits, disbursements;

• Legal advice regarding advocacy matters;

• Travel expenses, including flights and car mileage;

• Taxis;

• Costs of provision of motor car;

• Further expenses for personal care provided to the mother.

46. I will deal with each of these claimed expenses individually. In doing so, I will give consideration to the principles set out in s39 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act.

Medical expenses

47. The NSW Trustee agrees that the requested medical expenses of $593 should be reimbursed to the applicant. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that these expenses were for the mother’s benefit and should be reimbursed to the applicant.

Guardianship Tribunal: hearings & disbursements

48. No details have been provided to the Tribunal in relation to expenses incurred by the applicant in proceedings before the Guardianship Tribunal, as it then was. This was a matter to have been raised before the Guardianship Tribunal who, apprised of all the relevant facts, could have then considered any application made by the applicant. It is not a matter appropriately considered by this Tribunal.

49. For this reason, I am not satisfied that the expenses claimed by the applicant for proceedings before the Guardianship Tribunal should be reimbursed to him from his mother’s estate.

Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) proceedings: hearings, review of decision, appeals, disbursements

50. The applicant seeks reimbursement from his mother’s estate for expenses incurred in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, which is the predecessor of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The applicant has not provided details of the expenses incurred or the nature of the proceedings.

51. Given the lack of information before me, I cannot be satisfied that it would be in the interests or welfare of the mother for these expenses to be reimbursed to the applicant from his mother’s estate.

Supreme Court appearances, hearings judgements, summons, affidavits, disbursements

52. The applicant wishes to be reimbursed for expenses he incurred in bringing proceedings in the Protective List of the Equity Division of the NSW Supreme Court. In these proceedings, the applicant requested the Court to appoint him as his mother’s guardian.

53. On 11 October 2011, the Supreme Court ordered that the applicant be made his mother’s guardian and that he be given the following functions in relation to his mother:

• accommodation

• activities/outings

• health care

• medical and dental consent

• services

54. In relation to costs, the Court order was as follows: ‘No order as to costs.’

55. Given that the issue of costs was considered by the Court who decided to make no order as to costs, I find that this issue has been resolved by a Court apprised of all the relevant facts. It would therefore be inappropriate to reconsider the question. On this basis, I am not satisfied that the expenses incurred by the applicant in bringing this action before the NSW Supreme Court should be reimbursed to him by his mother’s estate.

Legal advice regarding advocacy matters

56. The applicant has claimed $2,330 for legal advice required to prepare for his court proceedings. No details have been provided in relation to the legal advice received nor has he provided any evidence of the costs incurred.

57. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence before me to consider the nature of the legal advice received by the applicant and how it would be either in the interests or welfare of the mother to have this money reimbursed from her estate. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that expenses incurred by the applicant for legal advice regarding advocacy matters should be reimbursed to the applicant by his mother’s estate.

Travel expenses, including flights and car mileage

58. The applicant is claiming $46,075 in travel expenses between 2007 and 2014. He has itemised these expenses and has provided evidence to support his claims. According to the evidence supplied by the applicant, these expenses include car travel to the family home, train travel, flights and refreshments. The expenses do not include transport costs from the airport to the family home or to the airport from the family home. Instead, the applicant has a separate claim for taxi fares, which is considered below.

59. In relation to the $46,075 claimed by the applicant for travel expenses, I am satisfied that he has supplied sufficient evidence to substantiate these expenses which, I find, were reasonably incurred to visit his mother to check on her welfare from 2007 and 2011, simply as her son, and from 2011 to 2014, as both her son and guardian.

60. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that in 2007, the mother was placed in a care facility in suburb W for people with difficult behaviours where she was initially treated with antipsychotic medication which was discontinued once her own challenging behaviour had abated. I accept the evidence of the applicant that his mother had been unhappy in this care facility and that he was instrumental in ensuring her move to a more appropriate care facility. This is substantiated by the 2016 Independent Assessment which states that

When visited in 2009, [the mother] was residing in [a care facility in suburb W]. Following [the applicant’s] appointment as his mother’s guardian by the Supreme Court and a series of issues he had with her care which he considered had not been resolved, he arranged for her to be transferred to [the care facility at suburb K]…He was concerned about her care [there] and according to staff at the current facility, took her out for lunch one day then to [the current facility] where she has resided since November 2013.

61. I accept that the applicant’s care for his mother has been comprehensive and continuous and that his regular visits to her have had been in her best interests and beneficial to her welfare. The applicant’s regular visits to his mother have served to preserve her family relationship with the applicant. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that during his visits, the applicant is careful to check the quality of the care being given to his mother and to suggest improvements or changes as appropriate. During his regular visits to his mother, the applicant can thereby satisfy himself, both as his mother’s son and as her guardian, that she is not at any risk of neglect, abuse or exploitation. For these reasons, I find that the requested travel expenses from 2007 to 2014 totalling $46,075 should be reimbursed to the applicant from the mother’s estate.

Taxi

62. The applicant has claimed taxi expenses at $30 per month for six years to enable him to get from the airport to the family home and from the family home back to the airport. The applicant is a 75-year-old man and I do not think it is unreasonable for him to catch a taxi to and from the airport. These form part of the overall expenses incurred in coming to Sydney to visit his mother. As set out above, I am satisfied that these visits are in the mother’s best interests and beneficial to her welfare. They also assist in preserving her family relationship with the son who, in maintaining regular contact with her, can ensure that she is protected from neglect, abuse and exploitation. For these reasons, I find that the applicant should be reimbursed $2,160 for taxi fares for a six-year period.

Costs of provision of motor car

63. The applicant is claiming vehicle expenses of $33,949, which he describes as the ‘actual cost of provision of motor car [in Sydney], for the sole use and benefit of [the mother] and to be located permanently [in Sydney].’ According to documentation before the Tribunal, this amount was reached by calculating running costs, actual repairs, depreciation and interest foregone on purchase.

64. I do not agree that these expenses should be reimbursed to the applicant. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the car is ‘for the sole use and benefit of the mother’ and do not accept that it would be in the mother’s interest to shoulder all costs associated with the applicant’s motor vehicle.

65. I do accept, however, that it has been useful for the applicant to have access to a car whilst in Sydney to ensure he can easily visit his mother. As set out above, I am satisfied that the mother derives a benefit from the applicant’s regular visits and that his visits are both in his mother’s best interest and assist her welfare. For this reason, I find that some reimbursement for the applicant’s motor vehicle expenses would be appropriate.

66. There is no dispute that the mother was first placed into a care facility in suburb W in September 2007 and that she remained there until November 2011. This care facility was approximately 20 kilometres away from the family home. The evidence before me is that during this time, the applicant would take his mother back to the family home for up to a week every month. There is no evidence before me that this continued after the mother moved from the suburb W facility.

67. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that in November 2011, the applicant moved his mother to a care facility in suburb K where she stayed until November 2013. This care facility is approximately 4km away from the family home. Since November 2013, the mother has resided in her current care facility in suburb G, which is also approximately 4km away from the family home.

68. In estimating the expenses incurred in visiting his mother, the applicant included a mileage allowance if $0.70 per kilometre. I am prepared to adopt the applicant’s submission in this regard to calculate approximate mileage expenses incurred by the applicant when visiting his mother in Sydney.

69. On the basis of the applicant’s evidence and that of the authorised visitor, I am satisfied that since 2007, the applicant has been visiting his mother monthly. I am also satisfied that in order to get to the various care facilities, the applicant has used the car that he keeps at the family home. On the basis, I find that it would be reasonable to reimburse the applicant for his motor vehicle use at his suggested rate of $0.70 per kilometre.

70. On the evidence before me, I am prepared to accept that it was a 40km round trip (approximately) from the family home to the suburb W care facility. I accept the applicant’s evidence that for the period his mother was in the suburb W care facility, he would take her back to the family home when he was in Sydney for the week. On this basis, I find that the applicant was not making the 40km round trip to the suburb W care facility on a daily basis. I accept that with his mother at the family home, it is likely that he needed to use the car to run errands for her or to take her out. To allow for this I will assume mileage of 10km per day. On this basis, I am satisfied that between 2007 and 2011, when the mother was in the suburb W care facility, the applicant used his car to drive approximately 110km each month. At the rate of $0.70 per kilometre, this would equate to $924 per annum, or $3,696 for that four-year period.

71. On the evidence before me, I am prepared to accept that between 2011 and 2015, the applicant visited his mother for seven days each month, which involved a daily round trip of approximately 8km, or 672km per year. At the rate of $0.70 per kilometre, this would equate to $470 per annum, or $1,880 for that four-year period.

72. On this basis, for the period 2007 to 2015, I find that the applicant should be reimbursed an amount of $5,576.

Further expenses for personal care provided to the mother

73. In a document faxed to the Tribunal on 27 July 2016, the applicant claims a further $95,760 from his mother’s estate for 38 home visits, each lasting up to seven days, between 2008 and 2011. The applicant states that, during this time, he provided his mother with 24 hour-a-day care, which, if calculated at $15 per hour, would amount to an average cost of $2,520 per visit.

74. There has been no further evidence submitted by the applicant in support of this claim. To charge the mother for care that would otherwise have been provided by the mother’s care facility does not seem to be in her best interest. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant should be reimbursed any money for the claimed 38 home visits that took place between 2008 and 2011.

Loan agreement

75. There is no dispute that in July 2015, the applicant was paid $90,500 from his mother’s estate to cover monies the applicant had loaned to his mother to enable her to delay the sale of the family home. The applicant is now claiming that the NSW Trustee has failed to complete the terms of its agreement.

76. On the limited evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that this is the case.

conclusion

77. For the reasons set out above, I find that the mother’s estate should reimburse the applicant for the following expenses incurred:

• $46,075 for travel expenses between 2007 and 2014, which exclude taxi costs to and from the airport, and exclude motor vehicle expenses from the family home to the mother’s care facilities;

• $2,160 for taxi expenses from the airport to the family home;

• $5,576 for motor vehicle expenses from the family home to the care facilities; and

• $593 for medical costs.

78. In total, then, the applicant should be reimbursed $54,404 from his mother’s estate.

79. In reaching this decision, I have given paramount consideration to the welfare and interests of the mother as required under s39 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act. I am satisfied that it is both in her best interests and beneficial to her welfare that she has had, and continues to have, regular contact with her son who, since 2011, has also been her guardian. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the mother suffers from dementia to such an extent that she is unable to express a view in relation to the matters now before me. In reaching my decision I have given particular weight to the need to preserve the mother’s relationship with her son who, by being able to visit her on a regular basis, can both maintain his relationship with her and continue to ensure her well-being.

Orders

1. The decision of the NSW Trustee and Guardian dated 24 March 2016 is set aside. In substitution for this decision, the Tribunal orders that the NSW Trustee pay to the applicant, from the mother’s estate, the amount of $54,404, as reimbursement for medical and travel expenses incurred by the applicant.

2. The disclosure or publication of the names of the applicant and the person under management of the NSW Trustee and Guardian is prohibited. Note: A reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 17 November 2016