TP v Public Trustee and Guardian
[2010] NSWADTAP 65
•1 October 2010
Appeal Panel - External
CITATION: TP v Public Trustee and Guardian [2010] NSWADTAP 65 PARTIES: APPELLANT
TP1st Respondent
NSW Trustee and Guardian2nd Respondent
TQ3rd Respondent
TR4th Respondent
5th Respondent
TS
ULFILE NUMBER: 108002 HEARING DATES: 21 September 2010 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 21 September 2010
DATE OF DECISION:
1 October 2010BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Goode P - Judicial Member; Wunsch A - Non-Judical Member CATCHWORDS: EXTERNAL APPEAL- views of the subject person - procedural fairness DECISION UNDER APPEAL: Order Revoking Appointment of enduring Guardian FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: C/31650, matter no 2009/8506 DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 03/11/2010 LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Guardianship Act 1987
Powers of Attorney Act 2003CASES CITED: R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, ex parte Hardiman [1980] HCA 13; (1980) 144 CLR 13
Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2005] NSWCA 456
Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWSC 143
World Best Holdings Ltd v Sarker & Anor [2004] NSWSC 935 K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052
Abdul-Karim v The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association [2005] NSWCA 93REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
In personFIRST RESPONDENT
No appearanceSECOND RESPONDENT
In personTHIRD RESPONDENT
M Chaperlin, solicitorFOURTH RESPONDENT
In personFIFTH RESPONDENT
DECISION MAKER
No appearance
E Cho, solicitorORDERS: 1. Leave is refused for the appeal to be made on grounds other than a question of law
2. The Guardianship Tribunal's orders made on 11 March 2010 are affirmed.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1 TR is an 89 year old woman who has been diagnosed with dementia. She lives in a dementia specific aged care facility. She has a son, TP, and two daughters, TQ and TS. In November 2004 TR appointed TP and TQ as her joint attorneys. That appointment allowed them to manage TR’s financial affairs. On 25 November 2009 TR revoked that appointment and appointed TP and his wife UL as her joint attorneys. TR also appointed TP as her sole guardian to make personal decisions such as where she should live and what medical treatment she should receive.
2 TQ was concerned about the decisions TP was making in relation to TR’s finances and the lack of communication among the siblings. She applied to the Guardianship Tribunal for a review of TR’s appointment in November 2009 of TP and UL as her joint attorneys. TQ also applied for a review of TR’s appointment of her son, TP as her guardian.
3 The Guardianship Tribunal decided not to review the appointment of the joint attorneys and, instead, made a financial management order appointing the NSW Trustee as TR’s financial manager: Powers of Attorney Act 2003, s 36 and Guardianship Act 1987, s 25F(d). The Guardianship Tribunal reviewed the appointment of TP and UL as enduring guardians and revoked that appointment. The Tribunal appointed TQ as TR's guardian and TP and TS as alternate guardians.
4 TP has appealed against each of the Guardianship Tribunal's decisions. He wants the Guardianship Tribunal’s orders to be set aside and the previous power of attorney and enduring guardianship appointment reinstated. He is aggrieved because he thinks that his mother had capacity in November 2009 to appoint himself and his wife as her attorneys and himself as her guardian. He is also aggrieved because he considers that he was a good financial manager for his mother. He takes issue with the suggestion that he has not managed his mother's money in her best interests. He says that his mother should be afforded the dignity of having her own money available to her without having to ask the NSW Trustee to give it to her.
5 TP has a right to appeal on any question of law but must obtain the permission of this Tribunal before appealing on other grounds: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, s 118B.
Parties
6 TR was not present at the hearing. The Tribunal appointed Ms Chaperlin, a solicitor with The Aged-Care Rights Service, (TARS) as TR's representative: ADT Act, s 71(4). Ms Chaperlin provided written submissions to the Tribunal but did not attend the hearing. Ms Chaperlin spoke to TR who told her that she would prefer all her children to manage her affairs and operate her accounts but if they were not able to do so she accepts that an independent person would do it for her.
7 The appellant, TP, was not legally represented, nor were either of his sisters, TQ and TS. TP's wife UL was also a party to the proceedings but did not attend the hearing. The Guardianship Tribunal said that it wished to have an active role in the appeal, but only to the extent of being available to make submissions in relation to the Guardianship Tribunal’s practices and procedures. That is consistent with the principles outlined by the High Court in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, ex parte Hardiman [1980] HCA 13; (1980) 144 CLR 13 at 35. Ms Cho provided written submissions but did not attend the hearing.
Grounds of appeal on questions of law
. TP agreed that the grounds of his appeal which identified questions of law were as follows:
a) that the Guardianship Tribunal did not take TR's views into consideration;
b) that the Guardianship Tribunal did not give him a reasonable opportunity to present his case or to respond to the doctors’ reports.
. The Guardianship Tribunal has a duty when exercising its functions, to take TR's views into consideration: Guardianship Act, s 4(d). Under the heading “Should the Tribunal make a guardianship order and what order should be made?” the Tribunal wrote:
[TR] at the beginning of the hearing stated that she was happy for any and all of her children to make decisions on her behalf. However, after a brief adjournment period [TR] stated that she wanted her son [TP] to make decisions for her. This changing view was reflective of what has been reported in other documents before the tribunal and it was submitted by [TR's solicitor] that TR could be manipulative and could also be manipulated by the differing views of others at different times.
10 Ultimately the Guardianship Tribunal did not make a decision which reflected TR's views but that does not mean that they did not take them into consideration. The Guardianship Tribunal recorded TR's views in its reasons for decision and noted that those views were not always consistent. We are satisfied that the Guardianship Tribunal took TR's views into consideration.
11 Reasonable opportunity to present case. According to TP, he was not given a reasonable opportunity to provide documents about his mother's finances or to respond to the doctors’ reports about TR's capacity to execute a power of attorney or appoint an enduring guardian.
12 The rules of procedural fairness include a rule that a person whose legal rights and obligations will be affected by a decision must be given a fair hearing. A fair hearing includes giving parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case and respond to adverse material.
13 Provision of documents. TP brought with him to the Guardianship Tribunal hearing documents including bank statements and receipts relating to his mother's financial affairs for the period from late 2004 to March 2010. He said that the relevance of those documents was that they establish that nothing untoward had happened during the period that he was managing his mother's financial affairs. He said he was not given an opportunity to explain to the Guardianship Tribunal exactly what had happened.
14 Under the heading “Is there a need for a financial manager to be appointed and is it in TR's best interests?” the Guardianship Tribunal stated, in part, that:
The evidence before the Tribunal is that TP and UL, daughter in law, have during the course of the management of TR's affairs, mixed their monies with TR's. This occurred when TR's monies were used in a mortgage offset account against TP and UL's mortgage. Both TP and UL were of the view this was acceptable as TR received the interest and that the issue was discussed with TR and she agreed to this happening.
15 TP disputed the Guardianship Tribunal's finding that he had ‘mixed’ his mother’s money with his own. However, he did not deny that his mother's money was in an account bearing his and his wife’s names. That situation can fairly be described as mixing his mother's money with his own. The Guardianship Tribunal noted that the interest on that money was paid to TR. The documents that TP brought with him were not relevant to the question of whether he had mixed his mother's money with his own by placing that money in his mortgage offset account. Nor were those documents relevant to any other issue before the Guardianship Tribunal. In those circumstances, there was no need for the Guardianship Tribunal to review the financial records TP had brought with him to determine any issue that was in dispute. The Guardianship Tribunal did not breach its obligations in relation to procedural fairness by not reviewing those documents.
16 Response to doctors’ reports. TP maintained that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the doctors’ reports. TS said that all the parties had a good opportunity to say what they needed to say on the day. TP did not support his assertion by referring to any material including the transcript. Nor did TP say, for example, that he had asked the Tribunal for an opportunity to cross-examine the doctors.
17 We are not satisfied on the basis of TP’s general assertion that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the doctors’ reports that the Guardianship Tribunal breached its obligation to afford TP procedural fairness.
Other grounds of appeal
18 The grounds of appeal on the merits were that:
a) the Guardianship Tribunal was too concerned with the dysfunction of the siblings and that the matters had been heard on different grounds in 2005;
b) the statements of Dr Petra Muir and Dr John Ward are in conflict with one another and the mini mental state examination is flawed because the outcomes are vastly different.
19 It is not necessary for the Appeal Panel to first identify an error of law before granting leave for an appeal to be extended to the merits of the Guardianship Tribunal’s decision: Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2005] NSWCA 456. The discretion is unfettered but must be exercised in a fair and just manner having regard to the purpose of the relevant legislation: Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWSC 143 at [13]. Certain inferences can be drawn from the fact that leave is required. They include the fact that the need for leave is a ‘control filter’ designed, among other things, to protect respondents from the cost of a full hearing of appeals which should not properly be entertained: World Best Holdings Ltd v Sarker & Anor [2004] NSWSC 935 (12 October 2004) per Sully J at [25]. Circumstances which may justify leave being granted include where the Tribunal has gone about its fact finding process in such an unfair or unorthodox manner that it is likely to produce an unfair result: K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052 at [10] to [15]. However, ‘merely to suggest that there is a bona fide challenge to a decision of fact is not enough to require the Appeal Panel to grant leave to appeal”: Abdul-Karim v the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association [2005] NSWCA 93 at [34] per Mason P (Ipp JA and Hunt AJA agreeing).
. Before making a financial management order, the Tribunal must be satisfied that:
(a) the person is not capable of managing his or her financial affairs, and
(b) there is a need for another person to manage those affairs on the person’s behalf, and
(c) it is in the person’s best interests that the order be made.
21 There was no dispute as to these issues. The dispute concerned who should be appointed as TR’s financial manager. The Tribunal decided that given the years of family conflict, the family had very little prospect of resolving their differences. In addition there were ongoing concerns about the placement of TR's money in TP and UL's account and those concerns were likely to continue unless an independent financial manager were appointed.
22 The nature and level of conflict among the siblings was a relevant consideration for the Tribunal to take into account when determining whom to appoint as TR's financial manager. The fact that it took that matter into account does not justify the Appeal Panel granting leave for an appeal against the merits of the Guardianship Tribunal's decision.
When reviewing TR's appointment of TP as her enduring guardian, the Guardianship Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence and concluded that she did not have capacity to do so at the time. TP disagrees with that conclusion saying that two out of the three doctors reported that TR knew what an enduring power of attorney was. That evidence is contained in a report of Dr Muir dated 15 December 2009 and a report of Dr Akkerman dated 24 November 2009. Dr Muir said: that:
I also asked of her what she understood to be the meaning of ‘Power of attorney’ and she replied ‘people who look after me . . take care of our finances.’
24 Dr Muir’s conclusion on the question of TR’s capacity to manage her own financial affairs and understand the true meaning of a Power of Attorney was that:
. . . she no longer understands the nature of her assets nor does she appear to understand the true meaning of Power of Attorney or who in fact possesses this at the time of assessment.
25 Dr Akkerman examined TR at the request of her solicitor. In a report dated 24 November 2009 he wrote:
I enquired as to what it means to have a power of attorney. She said that it’s so that somebody can look after her and after her money.
26 TP also pointed to significant differences in the results of mini mental state examinations administered to TR which, he said, showed that the evidence about her capacity at the time was not consistent.
27 None of TP’s submissions satisfies us that the Guardianship Tribunal came to a conclusion on the basis of the medical evidence which was not open to it, or was unfair or unorthodox. The Tribunal comprehensively reviewed the medical evidence and gave reasons for preferring the opinion of Dr Muir. There is no basis for granting leave to extend the appeal to the merits of this finding.
1. Leave is refused for the appeal to be made on grounds other than a question of law.
2. The Guardianship Tribunal's orders made on 11 March 2010 are affirmed.
0
6
3