WAJ
[2015] QCAT 236
•30 March 2015
| CITATION: | WAJ [2015] QCAT 236 |
| PARTIES: | WAJ |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA1484-15 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Acting Senior Member Endicott |
| DELIVERED ON: | 30 March 2015 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The application for a review of the appointment of an administrator by WM is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | REVIEW OF APPOINTMENT – where an administrator had been appointed for all financial matters until further order of the Tribunal – where family had earlier indicated that the current appointee should remain in place – where some three months later application made by family to review appointment and sought appointment instead of the current appointee – where no grounds put forward for review EARLY END TO PROCEEDINGS – where Practice Direction set out information required before review took place of ongoing appointment – where applicant asked to provide information to satisfy Practice Direction – where no information was forthcoming – whether application for review of appointment lacked substance – whether appropriate to bring an early end to proceedings Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 45 and 47 |
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
WAJ has a chronic psychiatric illness and he is subject to an Involuntary Treatment Order under the Mental Health Act 2000.The Public Trustee of Queensland has been appointed as an administrator for all financial matters for WAJ until further order of the Tribunal.
WAJ lives with his mother, WM. His mother applied to the Tribunal seeking a review of the appointment of the administrator and proposed that she be appointed as WAJ’s administrator. Under section 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, the Tribunal, when considering a review of an appointment, must revoke that appointment unless satisfied that an administrator should remain in place. Once satisfied that an administrator should remain in place, the Tribunal must continue the appointment of an appointed decision-maker unless that person is no longer competent or another person is more appropriate for appointment.
In October 2014 WM had applied for a review of the appointment of a guardian for WAJ and in December 2014 the Tribunal revoked that appointment. In her application dated 3 October 2014 WM had stated that she wanted The Public Trustee to remain in place as the administrator for her son. WM had also communicated this view to the GP for WAJ, Dr Dudgeon, who had reported to the Tribunal on 2 December 2014 that WM did not want to take on this responsibility.
In her later application dated 19 January 2015, WM sought to be appointed as her son’s administrator instead of The Public Trustee. The only grounds disclosed for the review in the application was a statement that WM was now able to take over responsibility for managing WAJ’s finances.
The Tribunal has in Practice Direction 8 of 2010 set out the information required before a review of an appointment will proceed to a hearing. The Tribunal registry wrote to WM on 17 February 2015 informing WM of the requirement to satisfy the Practice Direction. The registry letter in particular sought information as to any relevant change in circumstances since the appointment was made in 2013 and whether WM was alleging that the current appointee was no longer competent or that she was more appropriate for appointment than The Public Trustee.
The Tribunal registry in this letter also informed WM that all applicants for appointment as an administrator were required to submit a financial management plan explaining how they will manage an adult’s finances.
WM was informed that the Tribunal would not proceed with her review application until the requested information was received. WM was informed that if the Tribunal did not receive the requested information from her within three weeks of 17 February 2015, her application may not proceed further. That period expired on 10 March 2015.
No information was received from WM within the period stated in the letter. She had not explained why she was more appropriate for appointment nor had she provided a financial management plan. The review application was referred to a senior member of the Tribunal on 30 March 2015 to consider dismissal of the review application under section 47 of the QCAT Act.
The tribunal must deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. A party to a proceeding in the tribunal is under an obligation set out in section 45 of the QCAT Act to act quickly in any dealing relevant to the proceeding. WM failed to provide essential information that the Tribunal needs to proceed to a hearing of the review application. If an applicant cannot satisfy the Tribunal of the factors in section 31 of the Guardianship Act, the review must be dismissed.
Section 47 of the QCAT Act gives the Tribunal power to bring an early end to a proceeding if the Tribunal considers that an application is lacking in substance.
The Tribunal considered that it was appropriate to bring the review application to an early end in view of the failure of WM to provide the information required before the Tribunal could consider the review application. Without that information, the review application lacked substance. WM had adequate time to provide the required information and she had been made aware that the review application would not proceed without that information.
The tribunal was satisfied under section 47 of the QCAT Act that the review application should be dismissed.
0
0
2