VTA

Case [2023] QCAT 68


QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

VTA [2023] QCAT 68

PARTIES:

In applications about matters concerning VTA

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAA915-23, GAA1573-23

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

DECISION DATE:

10 February 2023

REASONS DATE:

27 February 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kanowski

ORDERS:

1.     The application by Wayne Crase for the appointment of a guardian for VTA under an interim order is dismissed.

2.     The application by Wayne Crase for the appointment of a guardian for restrictive practices for VTA under an interim order is dismissed.

3.     The application by VTA's mother for the appointment of a guardian for VTA under an interim order is dismissed.

4.     The application by VTA's mother for the appointment of a guardian for restrictive practices for VTA under an interim order is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – GUARDIANSHIP AND SIMILAR APPOINTMENTS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where tension between family members and service provider about personal decisions and restrictive practices – whether independent guardian should be appointed on an interim basis – whether service provider is a relevant service provider

Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 12, s 12A, s 140, s 178

Disability Services Regulation 2017 (Qld), r 12
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 5(d), s 12, s 80R, s 80ZD, s 80ZR, s 129(1)
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s13, s 17, s 19

Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld), s 37

NJ [2022] QCAT 283

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. These applications relate to a woman who, for privacy reasons, will be referred to only as VTA. Similarly, to protect her privacy, her mother and brothers will not be referred to by name.

  2. VTA is 49 years of age. Despite her relatively young age, VTA resides in an aged care facility operated by Blue Care. VTA has lived there since 2017.

  3. Mr Wayne Crase is a regional general manager for aged care and community services in Blue Care. Mr Crase is one of the applicants.

  4. On 12 January 2023, Mr Crase filed a Form 10 application (application for administration/guardianship appointment or review) in the tribunal. This has been treated by the tribunal’s registry as comprising:

    (a)an application for the appointment of a guardian; and

    (b)an application for the review of the appointment of an administrator.

  5. Mr Crase proposes that the Public Guardian be appointed guardian, and that the Public Trustee of Queensland be appointed administrator instead of the current administrator, VTA's mother. Mr Crase’s applications for the appointment of a guardian and for the review of the appointment of an administrator are yet to be heard and determined.

  6. On 12 January 2023, Mr Crase also filed an application for an interim order. He sought, in effect, the appointment of the Public Guardian as guardian and as guardian for a restrictive…

Continue reading VTA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
VTA [2023] QCAT 68
Case
[2023] QCAT 68
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the court involved VTA, an individual with impaired capacity, and the management of their personal decisions and restrictive practices. Wayne Crase, who was involved with VTA as a service provider, and VTA's mother sought the appointment of an independent guardian on an interim basis to oversee VTA's affairs. The court was required to determine whether an independent guardian should be appointed and whether the service provider was a relevant service provider for the purposes of the application.

The court examined the principles and considerations involved in appointing a guardian for a person with impaired capacity. It noted the tension between family members and service providers in such situations and emphasised the importance of protecting the rights and best interests of the individual with impaired capacity. The court also considered the role of a service provider in relation to the appointment of a guardian. Ultimately, the court found that there was no basis for appointing an independent guardian on an interim basis, as the existing arrangements and involvement of the family and service provider were sufficient to protect VTA's rights and interests.

The court dismissed all four applications for the appointment of a guardian for VTA and for restrictive practices. It concluded that the existing arrangements, including the involvement of the family and service provider, were adequate to address the issues raised in the applications. The court did not find it necessary to appoint an independent guardian on an interim basis, as the applications did not meet the required threshold for such an appointment. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the specific circumstances of VTA's case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application by Wayne Crase for the appointment of a guardian for VTA under an interim order is dismissed.

2. The application by Wayne Crase for the appointment of a guardian for restrictive practices for VTA under an interim order is dismissed.

3. The application by VTA's mother for the appointment of a guardian for VTA under an interim order is dismissed.

4. The application by VTA's mother for the appointment of a guardian for restrictive practices for VTA under an interim order is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.