RK

The parties involved in this case are RK, the represented person, and the Office of the Public Advocate, which was appointed as their guardian. The dispute revolves around the decision of a single member of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to appoint the Office of the Public Advocate as the guardian of RK, a decision that RK appealed to the Full Tribunal. The legal issues before the court were whether RK required a guardian, whether it was in RK's best interests for a family member to be appointed as their guardian, and whether any family members were suitable to be appointed as guardian given significant family conflict. The court also needed to determine whether a plenary or limited guardian should be appointed.

The Full Tribunal considered the evidence presented and the relevant legal principles. They noted that the decision to appoint a guardian should be based on what is in the best interests of the represented person. The court held that RK did require a guardian and that it was in their best interests for a family member to be appointed. However, due to significant family conflict, none of the family members were deemed suitable to be appointed as guardian. The court found that a plenary guardian was appropriate in this case, as RK required assistance with all aspects of their life. The Office of the Public Advocate was therefore appointed as the plenary guardian of RK.

The Full Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal principles. They found that RK did require a guardian and that it was in their best interests for a family member to be appointed. However, due to significant family conflict, none of the family members were suitable to be appointed as guardian. The court held that a plenary guardian was appropriate in this case, as RK required assistance with all aspects of their life. The Office of the Public Advocate was therefore appointed as the plenary guardian of RK.