SJT - [2025] QCAT 317

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

SJT [2025] QCAT 317

PARTIES:

In applications about matters concerning SJT

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAA5521-23

GAA5522-23

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Casey (Presiding)

Member Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

1.     DNM is appointed as guardian for SJT for the following personal matters:

(a)     health care.

2.     This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.

3.     The Public Guardian is appointed as guardian for SJT for the following personal matters:

(a)     provision of services, including in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

4.     This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.

5.     DNM is appointed as administrator for SJT for all financial matters.

6.     The Tribunal dispenses with the requirement for the administrator to provide a financial management plan.

7.     The Tribunal directs the administrator to keep records of dealings and transactions involving SJT’s income and property and directs the administrator to provide to the Tribunal within 21 days of being notified that a review of their appointment has been commenced:

(a)     copies of SJT’s bank statements for the reporting period;

(b)     a current fortnightly budget of income and expenditure; and

(c)     a signed Declaration as to continuing appropriateness for appointment.

8.     This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.

CATCHWORDS:
HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – where the Tribunal is satisfied the presumption of capacity is rebutted – need for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 11, s 12, s 14, s 15, Schedule 4
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13, s 17, s 24, s 25, s 48
Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld), s 62

APPEARANCES:

Applicant:
Others:

DNM – parent of the adult

SJT – the adult

NLF – support worker for the adult

NLZ – support coordinator for the adult and DNM

REASONS FOR DECISION

In an application for an interim order received by the Tribunal on 28 February 2023, DNM sought her interim appointment as guardian and administrator for SJT.
On 10 May 2023 the Tribunal received further applications from DNM seeking her appointment as guardian and administrator for SJT.
In a decision of the Tribunal of 17 May 2023, the Tribunal dismissed DNM’s application for the appointment of a guardian under an interim order and appointed DNM as interim administrator to make decisions in relation to managing SJT’s bank accounts. The Tribunal directed the interim administrator to provide a written account of her actions as administrator to the Tribunal no later than three (3) working days prior to the hearing. The appointment was to remain current for three (3) months or, if the Tribunal were to make a further order in this matter, until the date of the further order, whichever was to be the sooner.
DNM’s substantive applications for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for SJT were heard on 1 August 2023.
At the time of the hearing SJT was 18 years of age and resided in rental accommodation with his brother, a friend and DNM.
The Legislation
The Tribunal is required to determine capacity as at the date of hearing in accordance with section 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) (‘GAA’) as the Tribunal must be satisfied that the adult has impaired capacity before it can further consider the applications for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for the adult.
The adult is presumed to have capacity in accordance with General Principle 1 of the GAA.[1]
[1]GAA s 11B.
The GAA defines capacity as follows:[2]
Capacity, for a person for a matter, means the person is capable of—
(a)     understanding the nature and effect of decisions about a matter; and
(b)     freely and voluntarily making decisions about the matter; and
(c)     communicating the decisions in some way.
[2]Ibid sch 4 (definition of ‘capacity’).
In the determination of capacity for an adult for a matter, the Tribunal must consider the type of decisions to be made and the support available to the adult from the adult’s existing support network.[3]
[3]Ibid s 5(c).
The Tribunal is to consider the medical evidence and submissions from the parties to determine if the presumption of capacity is to be rebutted for the adult.
The Tribunal, when considering the appointment of a guardian or administrator, must be satisfied not only in regard to capacity, but also of the other matters set out in section 12 of the GAA.
The Tribunal is required to act in accordance with sections 14 and 15 of the GAA when appointing guardians and administrators. The appointee must satisfy the requirements of section 14 including that the person is appropriate for appointment in accordance with the appropriateness considerations set out in section 15 of the GAA.
Does SJT have capacity to make personal and financial decisions?
Evidence
In a report dated 8 March 2023 Dr Gabrielle du-Preez-Wilkinson, a general practitioner, states that SJT experiences a developmental delay and has limited use of all limbs as a consequence of cerebral palsy. Dr du-Preez-Wilkinson writes that SJT requires support to communicate as he experiences communication challenges which include the inconsistent use of speech in so far as answering ‘yes/no’ and has a comprehension ability equivalent to an individual of 14 or 15 years of age. Dr du-Preez-Wilkinson stated that the adult needs support to do banking and with all activities of daily living. In the doctor’s opinion, SJT is able to understand the criteria necessary to make an enduring power of attorney and is able to make simple financial decisions and all personal decisions.
At the hearing, DNM submitted a functional assessment report dated 20 June 2022, penned by Caleb Thomas, an occupational therapist. The report states that SJT has a primary diagnosis of spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy that affects his limbs, torso and face. The adult has also been diagnosed with scoliosis, epilepsy, global developmental delay, cortical visual dysplasia, bilateral hip dysplasia, obstructive sleep apnoea, tracheomalacia, chronic neonatal lung disease and gastro-oesophageal reflux. The report states that SJT attended a ‘special school’. According to the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Scale (WHO-DAS 2.0), SJT’s overall extent of disability is severe (overall score of 72.92%) and significantly impacts his cognition, emotion, general health, motor/movement, functioning and activities of daily living. On the Modified Barthel Index (MBI), SJT scored 0/100 indicating he requires total dependence on others to complete his self-care, mobility and transfer needs. SJT obtained a score of 7 on the Care and Needs Scale (CANS) implying that he cannot be left alone and requires 24/7 support. The report details that DNM experiences significant caregiver strain, as the adult’s primary caregiver, and that DNM and SJT’s brother, as SJT’s secondary carer, both experience their own personal health concerns.
In her oral evidence to the Tribunal DNM said that she argued with doctors, hospitals and medical professionals when necessary and that at times she ‘had to override [the adult] because he does not choose the right thing to do’. In relation to the adult’s financial decision making, DNM told the Tribunal that the adult spends money on ‘splurging’.
DNM submitted that SJT has a favourite communication aid in the form of a yes/no switch, to which she referred as a ‘bullshit button’. She stated that she had taken another communication device away from the adult ‘so he would speak more’ and that the adult is able to speak very clearly with people at times when he chooses to do so.
She added, ‘I need a piece of paper to say I am a guardian or whatever. I am his voice in the real world. Without that, no-one listens’.
DNM told the Tribunal that the adult has the capacity to control his own life and make decisions. He can program his brother’s Xbox. She submitted that the adult however needs ‘someone to be the voice’ and that he ‘needs an enabler’.
Whilst DNM provided oral submissions at the hearing, the adult, who did not have a communication aid with him, inconsistently vocalised. He did not use gestures. DNM told the Tribunal that such vocalisations were his comments in relation to the topic that was being discussed. All vocalisations from the adult were not understood by the members and were deemed unintelligible.
When questioned by the Tribunal members, the adult turned toward them. His body language indicated that he understood that he was being addressed. SJT did not initiate any communication, nor did he respond to any questions put to him. The question formats included open-ended questions and questions which required a short answer or a choice of two options.
Determination
The Tribunal considered the written and oral evidence.
The Tribunal notes the report of Dr du-Preez-Wilkinson and places greater weight on the functional assessment report by occupational therapist Caleb Thomas, as the latter details results obtained by the adult on standardised assessments and the interpretation of those results.
The written evidence establishes that SJT, against a background of spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, has a diagnosis of developmental delay and has been educated in a special educational setting. The overall extent of his disability is severe, as assessed on the WHO-DAS 2.0 in 2022. The severity of his disability significantly impacts his cognition, emotion, general health, motor/movement, functioning and activities of daily living.
The Tribunal observes that DNM provided inconsistent and contradictory evidence to the Tribunal in relation to the adult’s abilities to make decisions, inclusive of his ability to communicate decisions. Whilst applying to be appointed as a guardian and administrator for the adult, DNM told the Tribunal that she believed the adult was able to make all decisions. In contradictory evidence, DNM described the adult’s reported preference for a rudimentary communication device limited to producing a yes/no response when activated, and that she sought to be ‘the voice’ of the adult.
SJT demonstrates significant communication deficits. He was observed to have non-functional communication during the hearing.
Upon consideration of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that SJT understands the nature and effect of his personal and financial decisions, nor can he communicate such decisions, due to his global developmental delay and communication disability.
Accordingly, the Tribunal rebuts the presumption of capacity for SJT for personal and financial decisions.
Is there a need for the appointment of a guardian for SJT?
Evidence
The evidence in relation to the adult’s personal circumstances follows.
SJT resides with his older brother, DNM and another individual. DNM and the adult’s brother are his primary and secondary carers, respectively. DNM submitted that there will be no change to the adult’s living circumstances in the foreseeable future.
SJT has complex medical conditions as detailed in functional assessment report dated 20 June 2022, written by Caleb Thomas, an occupational therapist. The report states that SJT has a primary diagnosis of spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy that affects his limbs, torso and face. SJT has also been diagnosed with scoliosis, epilepsy, global developmental delay, cortical visual dysplasia, bilateral hip dysplasia, obstructive sleep apnoea, tracheomalacia, chronic neonatal lung disease and gastro-oesophageal reflux.
In a letter dated 17 August 2022, from Dr Theresa Carroll, Consultant at Queensland Paediatric Rehabilitation Service within Children’s Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, to Dr Gabrielle du-Preez-Wilkinson, the adult’s conditions of spastic dystonic quadriplegic cerebral palsy GMFCS 5, oesophageal disconnection and excessive salivation were documented. In addition, the letter states that SJT receives all of his nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and that he will require relevant referrals to transition from paediatric to adult hospital service delivery systems to meet his continued physical and rehabilitation needs.
DNM submitted that she had been acting as the adult’s statutory health attorney[4] for health care decisions upon the adult attaining his majority. She stated that she had consented, on behalf of SJT, to the recommended treatment options provided to him by the adult’s various medical providers.
[4]Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld) s 62.
SJT is a participant in the NDIS. The functional assessment report dated 20 June 2022 of Caleb Thomas, an occupational therapist, stated that the adult attained a score of 100% in the domain of ‘life activities’ on the WHODAS, indicating that the adult experiences an extreme level of impact from his disability and is fully dependent on informal and formal supports to complete his personal and instrumental activities of daily living. For example, the adult requires a carer/participant ratio of 2:1 for the activities of showering, dressing, transfers (power wheelchair to/from bed) and to meet his nutritional needs. The occupational therapist stated that the level of care which the adult receives from his mother and brother is unsustainable as both individuals have personal health concerns and that, according to the results on the Caregiver Strain Index, DNM was experiencing a very high degree of caregiver strain. Recommendations made by occupational therapist include in-home support (during the day and overnight), community access support, equipment upgrades/replacements and increased support coordination. Such changes would require a new plan with a substantial injection of funding through the NDIS.
DNM has been informally supporting the adult with his service provision decisions. In her oral evidence to the Tribunal DNM revealed her own medical diagnosis and confirmed that she has associated physical health needs. DNM described the adult’s support workers as individuals who work for her, and reported that she had sent the adult’s rostered support workers home for four days over the Christmas period as an act of generosity to them. DNM said that she had subsequently sustained an injury to her back whilst attending to the adult’s needs over the Christmas period in the absence of support workers. In other evidence, DNM said that she had made decisions to provide SJT with equipment through the NDIS (e.g. a wheelchair to support his physical functioning) however she did not pursue communication aids through the scheme as they were ‘expensive’. She submitted that she understands the adult’s needs and that she can ‘read his body language’.
NLZ, the NDIS support coordinator for both the adult and for DNM, told the Tribunal that it would be possible for SJT to obtain communication aids such as ‘switches’ through the NDIS, however the adult had not been ‘keen to engage’ with such items. She said a speech pathologist was ‘involved’ in 2022 and that ‘this was not continued’. She told the Tribunal that, through the NDIS, the adult receives mobility equipment, for example physio-based equipment, attends a day program and has dietitian support for his PEG feeds.
Determination
There are no imminent decisions required in relation to SJT’s accommodation matters as he is to remain residing with members of his family.
SJT has complex physical health conditions which necessitate ongoing treatment and management decisions. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the statutory health attorney regime will meet his continued physical and rehabilitation needs in the current circumstances of SJT’s transition from paediatric to adult specialist medical services.
Pursuant to section 12 of the GAA, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a need for decisions in relation to health care for SJT. The Tribunal determines that without the appointment of a guardian for this matter, the adult’s needs will not be adequately met, nor his interests adequately protected.
The adult is a participant in the NDIS. Ongoing decisions are required for SJT in order for him to receive essential support services within his home and to access the community. Currently, such decisions are being made by DNM.
It is of concern to the Tribunal that, as a consequence of DNM’s decision making, SJT’s engagement with speech pathology treatment, and his opportunity for increased communication access via communication aids, have been ceased whilst SJT continues to experience severe communication challenges.
Of further concern is the decision by DNM to decline or suspend the adult’s formal supports during the Christmas period out of an act of generosity to the support workers, given his complex physical needs and her own challenges in providing the care that SJT requires. In doing so, DNM placed the support workers’ activities over the Christmas period ahead of the adult’s safety and wellbeing at that time. Her decision placed her in a vulnerable position, as DNM injured herself attempting to assist the adult in his physical activities of daily living. The decision of DNM was not consistent with an individual who understands the risks to the adult’s health and wellbeing should he not receive essential support and assistance.
The Tribunal is of the view that the adult’s needs, including his communication needs, would not be adequately met, nor his interests be adequately protected, should DNM continue to make decisions in relation to services provided to the adult, including those in relation to those within the NDIS. Therefore, having regard to the section 12 of the GAA the Tribunal determines that there is a need for the appointment of a guardian for this matter.
Who is most appropriate for appointment as guardian for SJT?
The options for appointment are the Public Guardian or DNM.
Evidence – Health care
The Tribunal considered the appropriateness and competence of DNM to perform functions and exercise powers should she be appointed as guardian for the adult under the GAA.
In her evidence to the Tribunal DNM demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the adult’s numerous and complex medical conditions. Whilst acting as the adult’s statutory health attorney, DNM supported the adult in obtaining necessary health care treatments and provided consent to those treatments on the adult’s behalf. She is available and willing to act as guardian for SJT for health care matters.
Determination – Health care
The Tribunal accepted the evidence of DNM and is satisfied that she meets the requirements of section 15 of the GAA in relation to being appointed as guardian for SJT for health care matters, including the likelihood that DNM will apply the General Principles[5] and the Health Care Principles.[6]
[5]GAA s 11B.
[6]Ibid s 11C.
Accordingly, the Tribunal appoints DNM as guardian for SJT for the following personal matters:
(a)health care.
This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.
Evidence – Provision of services, including in relation to the NDIS
DNM has been making decisions informally for the adult in relation to the nature and extent of services he receives through the NDIS. DNM is seeking to be formally appointed as guardian for the adult for such decisions. She submitted that she understands the adult and his needs.

The proposed appointment of DNM is supported by NLZ, the NDIS support coordinator for the adult and for DNM. NLZ submitted that there are ‘complexities around supporting [the adult] and the family’ and that, if the Public Guardian were to be appointed, it would ‘add a layer of challenge that would make life really difficult to re-sort’.
Determination – Provision of services, including in relation to the NDIS
Upon hearing the evidence of DNM, the Tribunal determined that the decisions of DNM, as informal decision maker for SJT’s service provision matters, have not consistently and adequately met SJT’s needs and protected his interests. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that DNM would make service provision decisions that would consistently and adequately meet SJT’s needs and protect his interests, in accordance with the General Principles[7] should she be formally appointed as a guardian for SJT for service provision decisions.
[7]Ibid s 11B.
Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that DNM is not appropriate for appointment[8] as guardian for the adult for decisions in relation to the provision of services, including those within the NDIS.
[8]Ibid s 15.
The evidence establishes that an independent and experienced guardian would be better placed to make decisions that meet the adult’s needs and protect his interests, in accordance with the General Principles.[9] The Tribunal determines that the Public Guardian, as an independent, skilful and experienced decision-maker, is appropriate for appointment as guardian for SJT, having regard to the provisions of section 15 of the GAA.
[9]Ibid s 11B.
The Tribunal therefore appoints the Public Guardian as guardian for SJT for the following personal matters:
(a)provision of services, including in relation to the NDIS.
This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.
Is there a need for the appointment of an administrator for SJT?
Evidence
In her application to the Tribunal, DNM submitted that SJT held a bank account in his name, however the bank had declined to issue him with a keycard. She further stated that the bank had denied SJT access to his funds and that she had been unable to support the adult to access his bank account since January 2023. As a consequence, DNM and her friends had been paying for SJT’s expenses.
Under the interim order, DNM managed the adult’s bank account and successfully obtained a keycard for the adult in order to access his savings.
At the hearing DNM confirmed that SJT receives the disability support pension into a bank account in his own name wherein savings approximate $4,000. SJT has no liabilities. Expenditure includes rent, utilities, medical/pharmaceutical expenses and discretionary spending.
DNM told the Tribunal that she is the adult’s correspondence nominee for Centrelink enabling her to act on the adult’s behalf in relation to communication with Centrelink. She said that the adult may receive additional income from the sale of his artwork later in the year.
Determination
SJT receives the disability support pension into a savings account. There are no identified liabilities. Funds will be needed for general living expenses. Should the adult receive additional income, he will be required to engage with Centrelink to determine if his eligibility for the disability support pension is impacted. The additional income will necessitate taxation and superannuation considerations.
Pursuant to section 12 of the GAA, there is a need for the appointment of an administrator for the adult for all financial matters, as his needs will not be adequately met nor his interests adequately protected without the appointment of an administrator.
Who is most appropriate for appointment as administrator for SJT?
The options for appointment as administrator for the adult are the Public Trustee of Queensland or DNM.
Evidence
Prior to the interim order, DNM informally supported SJT with his financial decision making upon SJT attaining his majority.
Under the interim order, DNM secured a key card for the adult, enabling him full access to his bank account.
DNM completed and signed a statutory declaration as to her appropriateness for appointment as administrator for SJT. She is available and willing to act.
Determination
The Tribunal determines that, having regard to section 15 of the GAA, that DNM is appropriate for appointment[10] as administrator for the adult.
[10]GAA s 15.
Accordingly, the Tribunal appoints DNM as administrator for SJT for all financial matters.
The Tribunal dispenses with the requirement for the administrator to provide a financial management plan.
The Tribunal directs the administrator to keep records of dealings and transactions involving SJT’s income and property and directs the administrator to provide to the Tribunal within 21 days of being notified that a review of their appointment has been commenced:
(a)copies of SJT’s bank statements for the reporting period;
(b)a current fortnightly budget of income and expenditure; and
(c)a signed Declaration as to continuing appropriateness for appointment.
This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.
Application of the Human Rights Act2019 (Qld)
The Tribunal gave consideration to the relevant human rights as set out in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HRA’). As required by section 48 of the HRA, the Tribunal must interpret statutory provisions to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose in a way that is compatible with human rights. SJT’s rights to privacy,[11] property[12] and protection from being subjected to medical treatment without his full, free and informed consent[13] may be engaged and limited by decision of the Tribunal to appoint a guardian and administrator for the adult. On balance, the decision of the Tribunal provides for the adult to receive necessary support for decisions in relation to health care, service provision and financial matters. Taking into account the above findings in relation to the criteria set out in the GAA, the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is the least restrictive option given the adult’s vulnerability and that the benefits of the decision of the Tribunal outweigh any limitations imposed on the adult’s human rights. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the limits imposed by the decision of the Tribunal are reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with section 13 of the HRA.
[11]HRA s 25.
[12]Ibid s 24.
[13]Ibid s 17(c).