RRF - [2016] QCAT 518

CITATION:

RRF [2016] QCAT 518

PARTIES:

RRF

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAA13100-16

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Endicott

DELIVERED ON:

15 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application by RR for an interim order is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GUARDIANS, COMMITTEES, ADMINISTRATORS, RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS – APPOINTMENT –where adult has been assessed as having an impaired understanding of his circumstances and financial resources - where a hearing of applications for appointment of formal decision-makers had been adjourned – where hearing was to resume in less than two months – where attorney in place to make financial decisions for the adult – where allegations that carer and attorney were not meeting the needs of the adult – where interim appointments sought before the resumption of the hearing - whether there was an immediate risk of harm

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) – s 129(1)

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

There are several applications for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator pending in the Tribunal for RRF. The Tribunal commenced hearing those applications on 2 June 2016 and made an order directing that RRF undergo a full capacity assessment. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing until that assessment took place and the hearing will resume on 7 February 2017.
RRF made an Enduring Power of Attorney on 29 July 1994 appointing PP. Under the law at that time, the Attorney could only make financial decisions for RRF. RRF lives in his own home and is cared for by CR who is described variously as his de facto partner or friend. Reports filed in the Tribunal state that RRF has been diagnosed with vascular dementia and demonstrates an impaired understanding of his current circumstances and financial resources.
There is considerable conflict within the family and support network of RRF as to who should make decisions for him. The Tribunal will decide who should be the formal decision-makers for RRF after the hearing on 7 February 2017. In the meantime, some of the family members of RRF have sought appointment as decision-makers for RRF on an interim basis up to the date of the hearing.
Interim appointments of a guardian and administrator can be made under s 129 (1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) (GAA). The Tribunal must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person in question is at an immediate risk of harm to his welfare or property in order for an appointment of a decision-maker on an interim basis to be made.
In support of the interim appointment application, the family member who made the interim order application stated that RRF needed constant care and that he did not believe that RC and the attorney, PP were providing this constant care. The applicant also alleged that mismanagement of…

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 RRF

Details

AGLC: RRF [2016] QCAT 518
Case: [2016] QCAT 518
Decision Date: 15 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, RR sought an interim order for the appointment of a decision-maker for his father, the applicant. RR alleged that the carer and attorney for the applicant were not meeting his needs and that there was an immediate risk of harm to the applicant if an interim order was not made. The matter had previously been adjourned, with the hearing set to resume in less than two months. RR sought the interim appointment of a decision-maker to manage his father's financial affairs.

The primary issue before the court was whether an immediate risk of harm to the applicant existed, warranting an interim appointment of a decision-maker before the hearing resumed. The court considered the statutory provisions, including section 129(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, which outlines the criteria for appointing a formal decision-maker. The court also weighed the existence of an attorney already in place to make financial decisions for the applicant, and the allegations made by RR against the carer and attorney.

The court found that there was no immediate risk of harm to the applicant, given the short time frame before the hearing was set to resume, and the presence of an attorney capable of making financial decisions. The allegations made by RR were not sufficient to establish an immediate risk of harm. The court noted that interim appointments should be made sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, and in this case, the criteria for such an appointment were not met. Consequently, the application for an interim order was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application by RR for an interim order was dismissed. The hearing was set to resume in less than two months, at which time the court would consider the appointment of a formal decision-maker for the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application by RR for an interim order is 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.