RFJ - [2023] QCAT 69 | CaseChat AU

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

RFJ [2022] QCAT 69

PARTIES:

In an application about matters concerning RFJ

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAA1742-23, GAA1743-23

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

DELIVERED ON:

27 February 2023

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

1. The applications by [CG] and [DL] for an interim order are dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – interim orders – where adults says capacity has improved since original order made – where adult alleges negligence by Public Trustee – whether administrator appointment should be ceased by way of interim order

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) s 5, s 7, s 11, s 11B, s 12, s 31

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009
(Qld) s 32

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 13, s 48

Aziz v Prestige Property Services Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 265

CB [2013] QCAT 421

GD [2011] QCAT 146
GKK [2011] QCAT 344

WJP [2012] QCAT 714

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is the application about?

RFJ is a fifty-seven-year-old woman living with schizoaffective disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), with long-term experience of domestic violence.[1] In 2021 she experienced a relationship breakdown that required her to navigate property settlement, taxation, and other complex financial and legal matters. That environment was said to exacerbate her mental health issues and, consequently, to challenge her capacity for informed decision-making.
[1]Application for administration/guardianship filed 30 March 2021.
At the conclusion of a Tribunal hearing on 3 August 2021, upon an application by DL, RFJ’s treating clinical psychologist, the Public Guardian was appointed as guardian for RFJ for accommodation decisions and the Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ) was appointed as administrator for RFJ for all financial decisions except for day-to-day finances and Centrelink payments. Each order was expressed to remain current under further order, to be reviewed in three years.
On 22 November 2022 an application for review of each appointment was filed by DL. The grounds for review were expressed as follows:[2]
Appointment of administrator was initially made as a means to protect the adult during a predicted heightened period of stress that could have exacerbated/triggered a lapse in her mental health and subsequent lack of capacity to manage her affairs in a protective way. This period is coming to a close and it is the opinion of the adult’s treating doctor and myself that [RFJ] is able to manage her affairs independently going forward with the ongoing personal supports she now has in place.
[2]Application for review filed 22 November 2022 at Part C, question 2.
The review hearing is scheduled to take place on 15 March 2023.
On 9 February 2023, CG, RFJ’s treating psychiatrist, filed an application for interim orders[3] seeking…

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 RFJ

Details

AGLC: RFJ [2022] QCAT 69
Case: [2023] QCAT 69
Decision Date: 27 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved two applicants, [CG] and [DL], who sought interim orders in relation to the administration of an estate. The applicants alleged that the Public Trustee had been negligent in the administration of the estate and that the estate’s capacity had improved since the original order was made. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had demonstrated a sufficient basis for the court to make an interim order ceasing the appointment of the administrator.

The court considered the applicants' allegations of negligence by the Public Trustee and the claim that the estate's capacity had improved. However, the court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support these claims. The applicants had not provided any objective evidence to support their claim that the estate's capacity had improved, and the court was not satisfied that the applicants had demonstrated a compelling reason for the court to interfere with the existing administration of the estate. The court also noted that the applicants had not provided any evidence to support their allegations of negligence by the Public Trustee. The court held that the applicants had not met the onus of proof required to make an interim order ceasing the appointment of the administrator.

As a result, the court dismissed the applicants' applications for an interim order. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the court to interfere with the existing administration of the estate. The court noted that the applicants had not provided any objective evidence to support their claims, and that the Public Trustee had not acted negligently in the administration of the estate. The court held that the existing administration of the estate should continue, and that the applicants' applications for an interim order should be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications by [CG] and [DL] for an interim order are 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.