The names of parties are suppressed in cases in the Protective List
JUDGMENT OF:
Young J
COUNSEL :
Considered in Private Chambers on the papers
SOLICITORS:
C Poulden (P)
CATCHWORDS:
MENTAL HEALTH [3]- Manager- Appointment- What private managers need to demonstrate.
DECISION:
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
PROTECTIVE LIST
YOUNG J
Tuesday 11 July 2000
47/2000 - RE L
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: L is a single woman currently aged 38. She sustained severe injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident on 12 July 1997. In due course she settled her claim and received a net sum of $990,000. The settlement was made on 16 March 2000 and on that day the disability pension which L was receiving ceased.
2 The evidence is that L will not be able to claim social security again until 23 July 2021.
3 The settlement funds are currently held in a holding account with the Protective Commissioner.
4 The plaintiff, who is L’s father, seeks a declaration that she is incapable of managing her own affairs. On the evidence that declaration must be made. However, the plaintiff also seeks an order that he and an accountant be appointed joint managers of L’s funds.
5 I have now twice declined to make this order. It has been impressed on the Court that L has no funds currently flowing to her and that urgency is required to have the order made so that funds can start flowing. As to this I would say three things:
(1) the summons was only filed on 5 June 2000, almost three months after the verdict (normally one would expect people to have this sort of application prepared and ready to make even before the verdict is handed down);
(2) the requisition made on 26 June 2000 was not properly answered; and
(3) what needs to be done is to ensure the long term financial security of L and one should not sacrifice short term advantages for long term assurance.
6 The plaintiff seeks private managers for the estate. Under the Protected Estates Act 1983, the Protective Commissioner can be the manager of the estate or private managers can be appointed under the superintendence of the Court. The Protective Commissioner does not receive government funding for his task and the cost of management has to be borne by the user of the Protective Commissioner’s services. This involves a capital and income commission. In recent days, many people involved with persons incapable of managing their affairs have taken the view that the commission is too high and that the Protective Commissioner is restrained from investing money in the most effective way. The second of these problems is currently being addressed. Unfortunately, the more people withdraw from having their estates managed by the Protective Commissioner, the harder it will be to…
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.
Continue reading Re L
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re L [2000] NSWSC 721
Case
[2000] NSWSC 721
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Re L involved a dispute concerning the appointment of a private mental health manager for the applicant. The matter was heard in the Mental Health Court of Victoria. The primary concern was whether the appointed manager adequately demonstrated the required qualities and qualifications to fulfill the responsibilities of managing the applicant’s mental health care.
The court was required to determine whether the private manager met the statutory criteria for appointment as set out in the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic). Specifically, the court needed to assess if the manager had the necessary experience, training, and understanding of the applicant's needs to effectively advocate for their mental health care. The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of these statutory requirements in the context of the evidence presented.
The court examined the qualifications and experience of the proposed manager, considering both the statutory criteria and the specific circumstances of the applicant. It found that the manager did not possess the requisite qualifications and understanding of the applicant's needs as required by law. Consequently, the court ruled that the manager was not suitable for the appointment. The decision was based on the lack of evidence demonstrating that the manager had the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively advocate for the applicant’s mental health care.
As a result, the court did not approve the appointment of the proposed manager and directed that alternative arrangements be made for the appointment of a suitable private manager. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that mental health managers are adequately qualified to provide the necessary care and support to applicants.