TJ v The Public Trustee of Queensland & Anor

In the matter of TJ v The Public Trustee of Queensland & Anor, the applicant sought compensation from the Public Trustee for decisions made regarding the administration of CRG's funds. These decisions included the tenancy of CRG's unit, the sale of a vacant land intended for cultural and other benefits, and the sale of the unit itself. The applicant argued that the decisions were not made in accordance with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) and its General Principles. Both the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and the Queensland Civil Appeals Tribunal (QCATA) dismissed the applicant's application for compensation. The Public Trustee did not provide any direct evidence of its decision-making processes, and there was no evidence that the Public Trustee had sought CRG's views prior to making the decisions. Limited enquiries were made with CRG's support network regarding the tenancy arrangement, but no enquiries were made concerning the sale of the real properties.

The primary legal issues were whether there was an evidential basis for QCATA to conclude that the Public Trustee complied with its obligations when making the decisions, and whether QCATA's decision was affected by an error of law. Additionally, the applicant argued that the reliance on the absence of evidence deprived them of a fair hearing and denied procedural fairness. The court had to consider whether the Public Trustee's decisions were made in accordance with the statutory obligations and the General Principles, and whether the lack of evidence presented a barrier to a fair hearing.

The court found that there was no evidence before QCAT or QCATA that the Public Trustee had considered alternative courses of action or assessed the financial consequences of those actions for CRG. Even the 2011 submission by the Public Trustee did not outline any consideration of options or the consequences of those steps for CRG. The court also found that QCATA did not err in its determination of relevant facts or in applying the relevant law. The court dismissed the applicant's claims that QCAT was not culturally competent and had displayed racial bias. The court concluded that there was no basis for finding that the Public Trustee had breached the Act or its General Principles in deciding to tenant and subsequently sell the unit. The court held that the Public Trustee had obtained CRG's views to the extent practicable at the time, as CRG's family members were aware that the Public Trustee was appointed to make financial decisions for CRG.

The court granted leave to appeal QCATA's decision, set aside the appeal to QCATA, allowed the appeal to QCATA, and remitted the applicant's application for compensation in GAA611-16 to QCAT for rehearing. The court refused leave to adduce further evidence.