SI - [2018] QCAT 67 | CaseChat AU

CITATION:	SI [2018] QCAT 67
PARTIES:	SI
APPLICATION NUMBER:	GAA2321-16, GAA2323-16, GAA2889-16
MATTER TYPE:	Guardianship and administration matters for adults
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2016
HEARD AT:	Maroochydore
DECISION OF:	Member Allen
DELIVERED ON:	13 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	Guardianship 1. The application for the appointment of a guardian by WS is dismissed. Administration 2. The application for the appointment of an administrator by WS is dismissed. Limitation Orders 3. The Tribunal orders that pursuant to s 109 of the *Guardianship and Administration Act* 2000 (Qld) the following information/documents are confidential and must not be disclosed: (a) All documents disclosing the name of the person who made the complaint to the Public Guardian must be redacted to remove reference to that person.
CATCHWORDS:	GUARDIANS, COMMITTEES, ADMINISTRATORS, MANAGERS AND RECEIVERS – APPOINTMENT – where adult living on isolated property supported by son – where son suffering carer stress – where investigation by Public Guardian to determine if adult’s needs are being met – where son unaware that he had been appointed attorney by adult – whether adult’s needs can be met by son acting under enduring power of attorney – whether confidentiality should be made to protect identity of complainant to the Public Guardian Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) s 12, s 109
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:	IS, SP, GS, WS, BT and PR for the Public Guardian.
SM for the Public Trustee.

REASONS FOR DECISION

SI is 82 years old and resides on her rural property supported by her son, SP. There has been evidence that SP is subject to carer stress in particular as SI is adamant that she will not leave her property even for respite care.
SI has had a diagnosis of dementia since 2010 and she has lost insight into her care needs. In particular, she considers that she is still capable of managing at home. While SP resides with her and provides support, his level of carer stress has meant that he has needed to take unplanned absences during which she has not received appropriate levels of monitoring and support.
There is another son SG who has less contact with SI and considered that things were being managed reasonably well.
Neighbours of SI had expressed concern and a referral was made to the Public Guardian, which was ultimately investigated, and an application for guardianship and administration was made to the Tribunal through SI’s medical centre.
The Tribunal may appoint Guardians and Administrators in accordance with s 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld). The Tribunal must be satisfied that the adult has impaired capacity for decisions about personal and financial matters; that there is a need for decisions; and that the adult’s need will not be adequately met without appointment.
It is clear that as a result of dementia SI has impaired capacity for decisions about personal and financial matters. There is also a need for decisions such as for service provision and accommodation, including respite accommodation, and SI’s finances must…

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 SI

Details

AGLC: SI [2018] QCAT 67
Case: [2018] QCAT 67
Decision Date: 13 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the subject was an adult who resided on an isolated property and was supported by her son. The son had been unaware that he had been appointed as the attorney by the adult under an enduring power of attorney. The son was also experiencing carer stress, and the Public Guardian had initiated an investigation to ascertain whether the adult’s needs were being met. The son sought the dismissal of an application for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator, while the Public Guardian sought to have the identity of the person who made the complaint to the Public Guardian remain confidential. The court had to determine whether the adult's needs could be met by the son acting under the enduring power of attorney and whether confidentiality should be imposed to protect the identity of the complainant to the Public Guardian.

The legal issues that arose for determination were whether the son could continue to act as the attorney under the enduring power of attorney given his unawareness of his appointment and his experience of carer stress, and whether the identity of the complainant to the Public Guardian should be kept confidential. The court examined the statutory provisions under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) and considered the implications of the son's unawareness of his attorney role and his carer stress on his capacity to meet the adult's needs. The court also considered the statutory obligation to maintain confidentiality of the identity of the complainant to the Public Guardian, weighing this against the need for transparency and accountability in the administration of the adult's affairs.

The court held that the son’s unawareness of his attorney role and his carer stress did not necessarily disqualify him from continuing to act as the attorney, as the enduring power of attorney allowed him to act in this capacity regardless of his awareness. The court dismissed the application for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator, recognising the son's existing role and responsibilities. Regarding the confidentiality of the complainant's identity, the court ordered that all documents disclosing the name of the person who made the complaint to the Public Guardian must be redacted to remove reference to that person, in order to protect the complainant’s identity while still allowing for necessary administrative and legal processes to proceed.

The Tribunal ordered that the application for the appointment of a guardian by the son was dismissed. It also dismissed the application for the appointment of an administrator. Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered that certain information and documents were to be treated as confidential under section 109 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld). Specifically, all documents disclosing the name of the person who made the complaint to the Public Guardian were to be redacted to remove reference to that person, thereby protecting the complainant’s identity.

Orders

Orders of the court

Guardianship

1. The application for the appointment of a guardian by WS is dismissed.

Administration

2. The application for the appointment of an administrator by WS is dismissed.

Limitation Orders

3. The Tribunal orders that pursuant to s 109 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) the following information/documents are confidential and must not be disclosed:

(a) All documents disclosing the name of the person who made the complaint to the Public Guardian must be redacted to remove reference to that person.

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.