Re KT and JC, Protected Persons

In the Family Court of Australia, the case involved an application for a change of manager in the management of the estate of two protected persons, KT and JC. The current manager, appointed by the Public Trustee, was subject to a change of ownership and a revised management policy. The applicants, who were interested parties, sought the removal of the current manager and the appointment of a new manager based on their belief that the new entity was more suitable to manage the protected estates in the best interests of KT and JC. The Public Trustee opposed the application, citing the importance of maintaining continuity in the management of the estates.

The court was required to determine whether the change of ownership and revised management policy of the current manager constituted sufficient grounds to warrant a change of manager, considering the welfare and interests of the protected persons as the paramount consideration. The court also needed to assess whether the countervailing considerations, such as the orderly management of the estates, outweighed the loss of confidence in the current manager. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the protected estates financial advice protocol was appropriately adopted and followed in the decision-making process.

In determining the application, the court considered the paramount importance of the welfare and interests of KT and JC. The court found that the change of ownership and revised management policy of the current manager did not, in and of itself, constitute sufficient grounds for a change of manager. However, the court also found that the loss of confidence in the current manager due to the change of ownership and management policy, along with the resistance to change, did affect the orderly management of the estates. The court held that the countervailing considerations, including the orderly management of the estates, outweighed the loss of confidence in the current manager. The court further found that the protected estates financial advice protocol was appropriately adopted and followed in the decision-making process.

The application for a change of manager was dismissed. Costs of the application were reserved for further consideration.