Slinko v Guardianship and Administration Tribunal - [2006] QSC 39

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Slinko v Guardianship And Administration Tribunal & Anor [2006] QSC 039

PARTIES:

EUGENIA SLINKO
(applicant)
v
GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL
(first respondent)
K M SPLATT & ASSOCIATES
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC 10294/05

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2006

JUDGE:

de Jersey CJ

ORDER:

Applications filed on 24 January 2006 and 20 February 2006 are refused, and the notice of appeal filed on 2 December 2005 is struck out. No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES – STATUTORY APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES TO COURTS – IN GENERAL – proceeding for damages for negligence in regard of personal injuries – applicant’s solicitors raise query as to her capacity to instruct them – GAAT declares a lack of capacity – purported appeal on grounds not solely legal – application for extension of time within which to seek requisite leave – disposition of costs where application fails

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 164, s 165

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
No appearance for the first respondent
L J Randell (sol) for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
No appearance for the first respondent
K M Splatt & Associates for the second respondent

de JERSEY CJ: On 18 May 2005, the first respondent, the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal, declared that the applicant does not have capacity to give instructions to her solicitors in relation to the conduct of a claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 3 May 2000, and a claim for damages for personal injuries sustained because of medical treatment on 23 January 2002 and subsequent treatment at the Brisbane Dental Hospital. A purported appeal against that declaration, and related applications, are the subject of the present proceeding. The Tribunal gave reasons for that decision on 24 June 2005.

On 5 September 2005, the Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for the applicant for certain “financial matters”: all legal matters in relation to the two damages claims, and all financial matters in relation to the management of any compensation payable in consequence of them. The Tribunal gave reasons for that determination on 31 October 2005.

The declaration as to the applicant’s capacity was made on an application instituted by the second respondent, her solicitors, on the basis of their concern about the applicant’s capacity to give instructions. The applicant had suffered brain damage as a result of the head injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident in the year 2000.

As indicated, the decision against which the applicant has purported to appeal was given on 18 May 2005, and the reasons for that decision were given on 24 June 2005. Any appeal was to be filed in the Registry of the…

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 Slinko v Guardianship and Administration Tribunal

Details

AGLC: Slinko v Guardianship and Administration Tribunal [2006] QSC 39
Case: [2006] QSC 39
Decision Date: 9 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Slinko, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The respondent, the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal (GAAT), was involved in a proceeding initiated by the applicant's solicitors, who raised concerns about her capacity to instruct them. The tribunal subsequently declared that the applicant lacked the requisite capacity. Slinko then sought to appeal this decision, but the appeal was not solely on legal grounds, which raised the question of the appropriate avenue for challenging the tribunal's decision. The applicant subsequently sought an extension of time to obtain the necessary leave to appeal and, if unsuccessful, sought an order for costs.

The primary legal issue was whether the appeal from the tribunal's decision was properly before the court. Given that the appeal was not solely on legal grounds, the court had to determine whether the appeal was an appropriate means of review. Additionally, the court had to consider the application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and the request for an order for costs if the application was unsuccessful. These issues involved the interpretation of relevant statutes and case law regarding appeals from administrative tribunals and the court's inherent jurisdiction to manage its own processes.

The court found that the appeal was not appropriately before it as it did not solely involve legal questions. The court noted that the appeal was partly factual and therefore not within the scope of the statutory appeal provisions. The application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was also refused, as the applicant had not demonstrated any special circumstances warranting an extension. Consequently, the notice of appeal was struck out. The court declined to make an order for costs, finding that the application for costs was dependent on the outcome of the unsuccessful application for an extension of time.

In summary, the court refused the applications for an extension of time and for costs, and struck out the notice of appeal. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the court's inherent jurisdiction in managing applications and appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications filed on 24 January 2006 and 20 February 2006 are refused, and the notice of appeal filed on 2 December 2005 is struck out. No order as to costs.

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.

CITATION:	Slinko v Guardianship And Administration Tribunal & Anor [2006] QSC 039
PARTIES:	EUGENIA SLINKO (applicant) v GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL (first respondent) K M SPLATT & ASSOCIATES (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC 10294/05
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	9 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 March 2006
JUDGE:	de Jersey CJ
ORDER:	Applications filed on 24 January 2006 and 20 February 2006 are refused, and the notice of appeal filed on 2 December 2005 is struck out. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES – STATUTORY APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES TO COURTS – IN GENERAL – proceeding for damages for negligence in regard of personal injuries – applicant’s solicitors raise query as to her capacity to instruct them – GAAT declares a lack of capacity – purported appeal on grounds not solely legal – application for extension of time within which to seek requisite leave – disposition of costs where application fails Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 164, s 165
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf No appearance for the first respondent L J Randell (sol) for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf No appearance for the first respondent K M Splatt & Associates for the second respondent