SWG
[2011] QCAT 181
•3 May 2011
| CITATION: | SWG [2011] QCAT 181 |
| PARTIES: | SWG |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA9825-10 GAA9826-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | C Endicott, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 3 May 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | The applications for review of the appointment of a guardian and an administrator are dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION – review sought of appointments – no new or changed circumstances – Practice Direction 8 of 2010 not satisfied – application lacks substance – early end to proceedings Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties in accordance with section 32(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 23 June 2010 the tribunal conducted a hearing of applications for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for SWG. At the end of the hearing and after considering the evidence presented to the tribunal, appointments were made. The Adult Guardian was appointed as guardian for SWG for accommodation, contact and health care decisions for a period of two years. The Public Trustee of Queensland was appointed as his administrator for all financial matters for an indefinite period.
On 4 November 2010 SBM lodged an application with the tribunal seeking a review of those appointments. She had married SWG subsequent to the hearing conducted by the tribunal in June 2010. She sought to be appointed as the guardian and administrator for SWG. SBM stated in her application that she sought the review of the appointments due to the fact that she and SWG were now married and he wanted to access his own funds and to make decisions about where he lived.
Notice of the review applications was given to SWG’s family. Several members of his family contacted the tribunal and informed the tribunal that they did not support the review applications. The guardian for SWG made a recommendation that the appointment of a guardian was necessary and that the Adult Guardian continues in that role.
On 31 January 2011 a staff member from the tribunal registry sent a letter to SBM informing her that she was required to provide information in accordance with Practice Direction 8 of 2010 if the review applications were to proceed. SBM was asked to provide that information by 17 February 2011.
On 15 February 2011 the tribunal received a letter from SBM. In that letter she stated that the weekly remittance of $125 that was being sent by The Public Trustee of Queensland to her husband was not sufficient to cover her husband’s needs. She stated that her husband does not understand why his pension cannot be paid to him. She is supporting him and her funds are dwindling. SBM stated that they cannot live where they choose and she finds it difficult to explain this to her husband.
In a telephone call to the tribunal registry on 24 March 2011, SBM was advised that she could make a complaint about the actions of The Public Trustee of Queensland and the Adult Guardian via the complaints process with those organisations if she did not agree with their decisions about her husband.
In a further letter received by the tribunal on 31 March 2011, SBM repeated her statements that her funds were dwindling due to living costs while The Public Trustee of Queensland was paying only 50% of those costs on behalf of her husband. She did not provide new information or information about any change in circumstances relevant to the requirements of Practice Direction 8 of 2010.
The tribunal has promulgated Practice Direction 8 of 2010 in the following terms, where relevant:
4. A review of an appointment of a guardian and/or an administrator made by the Tribunal will be conducted at the end of the period of the appointment as ordered by the Tribunal except in cases where:
(i) New and relevant information has become available since the hearing; or
(ii) A relevant change in circumstances has occurred since the hearing; or
(iii) Relevant information that was not presented to the Tribunal at the hearing has become available;
And in accordance with s.31 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000:
(iv) The current appointee is no longer competent; or
(v) another person is more appropriate for appointment.
5. The Tribunal may hear and dismiss on the papers an application requesting a review of appointment of a guardian and/or administrator which the Tribunal determines does not disclose the information required in paragraph 4 of this practice direction.
SBM did not provide new and relevant information about the circumstances of her husband. The information relied on in her review applications was focussed on her husband being upset that he could not handle his own pension, that he and his wife could not make their own decisions about where he lived and that the funds remitted for his use were not sufficient to cover the expenses they incur as a married couple. There was no indication that SBM had made a complaint via the complaints process within The Public Trustee of Queensland.
[10] In addition she had not provided satisfactory evidence that she would be more appropriate than the Adult Guardian and The Public Trustee of Queensland as a decision maker for her husband.
[11] Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 gives the tribunal power to bring a proceeding to an early end if the tribunal considers that an application is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or is lacking in substance or is otherwise an abuse of process.
[12] The tribunal concludes that the applications lodged by SBM should be brought to an early end in view of her failure to provide information to satisfy the requirements of Practice Direction 8 of 2010. Without that information the application cannot proceed to a hearing for determination on its merits and is lacking in substance. The appointment of the guardian had been made in June 2010 for a period of 2 years and the appointment of the administrator had been made indefinitely. Those appointments should continue unless new and relevant circumstances warrant an earlier review. Such circumstances have not yet been established.
[13] The tribunal considers that under section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 the application for review of the appointments of the guardian and the administrator for SWG must be dismissed.
0
0
0