SM

CITATION: SM [2014] QCAT 568

PARTIES: SM

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAA5396-14

MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters for adults

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Senior Member Endicott

DELIVERED ON: 11 July 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application by SSC for an interim order is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

GUARDIANSHIP – where guardian made decision for adult to reside permanently in an aged care facility – where objection from a family member to that decision – where review of appointment of guardian commenced – where decision made by administrator to sell the adult’s house to fund accommodation bond

STAY – where applicant for review sought a stay of decision to place adult permanently into aged care facility – where stay application to be considered at same time of review of guardian – where subsequent application made to stay decision to sell house pending completion of review hearing – where evidence that sale would not occur before review hearing – whether applicant could establish prima facie case that review would be successful – whether balance of convenience in favour of stay or in favour of rejection of stay application

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s 128

Jones v Queensland Health [2010] QCAT 700
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill Laboratories Pty Ltd (2006) 227 CLR 57

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. SM is 85 years old.  The Public Guardian (formerly the Adult Guardian) has been appointed to make some personal decisions for SM since 2010.  It is the responsibility of the Public Guardian to decide where SM lives.

2. In August 2013 the appointed guardian made a decision that SM was to move into respite care at an Aged Care Facility in Tewantin.  SM had up to that time been living in her own home north of Brisbane with in-house support.  The tribunal had refused an application brought by her daughter, SSC, to stay the accommodation decision and had dismissed an application by SSC to give directions to the guardian about the continuation of in-home care for SM on 27 August 2013.

3. SSC applied in February 2014 to review the appointment of the guardian.  She contends that the guardian has not applied the General Principles in making decisions about accommodation and contact for SM.  SSC sought to be appointed as guardian for her mother.

4. That application is opposed by the other four adult children of SM.  They support the accommodation decision made by the guardian and they support the proposal for the sale of the home of SM which would be a consequential result of the decision for SM to remain permanently in the current aged care facility. 

5. The guardian then made a decision on 15 May 2014 that SM would remain residing permanently at the Aged Care Facility. SSC applied to the tribunal for a stay of that decision until the review…