TW (Review Guardianship)

[2018] TASGAB 21

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD

TW (Review Guardianship) [2018] TASGAB 21

STATEMENT OF REASONS

Virginia Jones (Chair)
Fred Lester (Member)
Cliff Partridge (Member)

Hearing 31 August 2018

Application to review single member decision of the Board –– application and subject matter did not raise any subsequent change to any material fact – application rejected
Guardianship and Administration Act, s11(14) and (15)

1. On Friday 31 August 2018 a division of the Board, comprising three members as required by section 11(15) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (the Act), convened to consider and determine an Application to Review a single member decision of the Board pursuant to section 11(14) of the Act (‘the Application’).

2. The Application was made by EU, a daughter of TW (the represented person).

3. The Application concerned a review of a decision to reject an Application to Review a Guardianship Order by a single member Board.

4. On or about 6 July 2018 the single member Board determined on the material before it that

   ‘[T]he application and subject matter has already been dealt with by the Board and there has been no subsequent change to any material fact.  I therefore reject the application to review the Guardianship Order’.

Background

1. On Friday 13 April 2018 a three member division of the Board heard an Application for Guardianship Order for the represented person.  The application was filed by GH, the eldest of three daughters of the represented person.

2. A number of people attended the hearing, including the represented person’s three daughters.  EU attended.

3. As a result of the hearing, the Board was satisfied the represented person was a person with a disability, was unable because of her disability to make reasonable judgments in respect of her personal circumstances and was in need of a guardian. 

4. The Board determined that GH be appointed as the represented person’s guardian, and the powers and duties of the guardian were limited to decisions concerning where the represented person was to live either permanently or temporarily.

5. Following the hearing EU requested a statement of reasons in relation to the Board’s decision.  A statement was provided.  The Statement addressed why the Board considered GH the appropriate person to be guardian.

10.  EU then made an Application to Review a Guardianship Order (filed 25 June 2018), which was determined by the single member Board on 6 July 2018.

11.  It is the determination of the 6^th July 2018 that is the subject of the Application before the Board.

Consideration

12.  The Application was considered on the hearing papers.

13.  The Board had voluminous documentary material before it, from the original Application for Guardianship Order through to the Application to Review Guardianship Order filed by EU on 25 June 2018.

14.  EU’s submission was that GH was not a fit guardian for the represented person as she was not capable of acting in the represented person’s best interests, and cited other reasons indicative of difficulties in the relationships between her and her sisters.

15.  The Board gave consideration to all of the documentary material before it.  It concerned the life of the represented person, the role each of her daughters had in her life over her life, and their own personal relationships and differences.  This material had been raised in the original hearing.

16.  There was no material in the Application that had not been canvassed or addressed in the material the original Board had before it on the 13^th April 2018.

Decision

17.  Having considered all of the material before it, the Board was satisfied and determined that the subject matter raised in the Application had already been dealt with by the original Board, and that there had not been any subsequent change to any material fact pursuant to s11(13)(b).

18.  The Application is rejected.

19.  This determination of the Board exhausts the review procedures available under section 11 of the Act.