ZG - [2025] QCAT 399 | CaseChat AU

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

ZG [2025] QCAT 399

PARTIES:

In applications about matters concerning ZG

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAA4563-24
GAA4564-25
GAA4708-25
GAA13185-25

GAA13186-25

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

DELIVERED ON:

20 October 2025

HEARING DATES:

18 September 2025 and 3 October 2025

HEARD AT:

Southport and Brisbane, respectively

DECISION OF:

Member Casey

ORDERS:

1.     The application for the appointment of an administrator for ZG under interim order is dismissed.

2.     The application for directions in relation to ZG is dismissed.

3.     The Public Guardian is appointed as guardian for ZG for the following personal matter:

(a)     Accommodation.

4.     This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.

5.     The Public Trustee of Queensland is appointed as administrator for ZG for all financial matters.

6.     The Tribunal dispenses with the requirement for the administrator to provide a financial management plan.

7.     The Tribunal directs the administrator to provide accounts to the Tribunal when requested.

8.     This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.

9. The following Enduring Power of Attorney for ZG is overtaken by the making of these appointments and, in accordance with s 22(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act2000 (Qld), can no longer be acted upon to the extent that these appointments have been made:

(a)   The Enduring Power of Attorney dated 3 August 2023 appointing DT as attorney for financial, personal and health matters.

CATCHWORDS:
HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – GUARDIANSHIP AND SIMILAR APPOINTMENTS – where an adult resides in an aged care facility – where an adult appointed their daughter as Enduring Power of Attorney for personal, health and financial matters – whether there is a need for a substituted decision-maker – where the views and wishes of the adult are considered – whether the attorney is complying with the provisions of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld) – where there are concerns about the suitability of attorney and proposed appointees – whether an Enduring Power of Attorney should be revoked – whether the attorney should be removed – whether there is a need for the appointment of a substituted decision maker – where the requirements under s 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) have been met – where an Enduring Power of Attorney is overtaken for specific matters – where an interim order is sought to appoint an administrator

HUMAN RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION – where the Tribunal considered whether the decision was compatible with human rights – whether the decision to overtake the enduring document limited or engaged the adult’s human rights – where the Tribunal recognises the adult’s right to privacy – where the Tribunal recognises the adult’s right to not have their reputation impacted – where the Tribunal recognised the right of a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading ZG

Details

AGLC: ZG [2025] QCAT 399
Case: [2025] QCAT 399
Decision Date: 20 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of ZG, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with deciding whether to appoint a substitute decision-maker for ZG, an adult residing in an aged care facility. ZG had previously appointed their daughter as an Enduring Power of Attorney for personal, health, and financial matters. The court was faced with concerns about the daughter's suitability as an attorney and her proposed appointees. The primary issue was whether there was a need for a substitute decision-maker and if the requirements under section 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) had been met.

The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by medical professionals, including letters from doctors stating that ZG lacked the capacity to make personal and financial decisions. The Tribunal also took into account ZG's cognitive status as outlined in their residential aged care plan, which highlighted wandering behaviour, memory deficits, and other cognitive impairments. The Tribunal found that ZG did not have the capacity to make complex decisions and, therefore, required a substitute decision-maker. The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian as guardian for personal matters and the Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for financial matters. The court also determined that the Enduring Power of Attorney dated 3 August 2023 was overtaken by these appointments.

In light of the findings, the Tribunal dismissed the application for the appointment of an administrator for ZG under interim order and the application for directions in relation to ZG. The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee, directing them to provide accounts to the Tribunal when requested. The appointments are to be reviewed in twelve months. The Tribunal's decision was made in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and considered the compatibility of the decision with human rights, recognising ZG's right to privacy and to not have their reputation impacted. The decision also recognised the right of a person with impaired capacity to make decisions, to be restricted and interfered with to the least possible extent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for the appointment of an administrator for ZG under interim order is dismissed.

2. The application for directions in relation to ZG is dismissed.

3. The Public Guardian is appointed as guardian for ZG for the following personal matter:

(a) Accommodation.

4. This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.

5. The Public Trustee of Queensland is appointed as administrator for ZG for all financial matters.

6. The Tribunal dispenses with the requirement for the administrator to provide a financial management plan.

7. The Tribunal directs the administrator to provide accounts to the Tribunal when requested.

8. This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months.

9. The following Enduring Power of Attorney for ZG is overtaken by the making of these appointments and, in accordance with s 22(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), can no longer be acted upon to the extent that these appointments have been made:

(a) The Enduring Power of Attorney dated 3 August 2023 appointing DT as attorney for financial, personal and health matters.

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

The Tribunal must give consideration to the relevant human rights as set out in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HRA’). As required by section 48 of the HRA, the Tribunal must interpret statutory provisions to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose in a way that is compatible with human rights. Does ZG have capacity to make personal and financial decisions and to make a new Enduring Power of Attorney? In a letter dated 18 September 2023 by a doctor on behalf of a general medicine consultant at the Tweed Valley Hospital, ZG was deemed as no longer having capacity to comprehend complex matters such as finances, official documentation, health care and lifestyle decisions. The adult’s daughter was recognised as his legal decision maker to effect the placement of the adult in a residential aged care facility. Additional written evidence includes a letter dated 29 September 2023 by a renal physician at John Flynn Private Hospital who provided the opinion that the adult does not have capacity to make lifestyle, healthcare or financial decisions. The physician advocated that the adult’s Enduring Power of Attorney be enacted for the above matters. In a letter dated 26 August 2024 to a general practitioner Dr BB, a consultant physician and geriatrician, stated that the adult attained a score of 19 out of 30 on the Mini Mental State Examination and exhibits features of moderate dementia secondary to Parkinson’s disease. He wrote that, given the adult’s long-standing history of Parkinson’s disease, the adult exhibited features of multi-domain cognitive impairment, which included an executive dysfunction pattern with impaired frontal lobe function. This manifested as vagueness, lack of clarity in thought, poor planning and organisation and an inability to comprehend and express his thoughts in a clear and coherent matter. Dr BB stated that the adult lacks the capacity to make complex decisions and, therefore, should not be involved in introducing new parties to the Enduring Power of Attorney arrangement that has been in place since late 2023. In a report dated 8 February 2025 Dr DK, a general practitioner, refers to the above-mentioned letter from the consultant physician and geriatrician. Dr DK stated that the adult is prescribed medication to control his behaviour within the residential aged care setting. The general practitioner provided the opinion that, due to the adult’s advanced Parkinson’s disease, cognitive impairment and dementia, the adult was unable to understand the necessary criteria to make or revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney, and was unable to make decisions in relation to financial matters, restrictive practice matters and complex personal matters (e.g. decisions pertaining to complex health care and lifestyle/accommodation choices). The adult’s residential aged care plan overview dated 8 February 2025, provided to the Tribunal by the attorney on 11 September 2025, includes the following information relevant to the adult’s cognitive status:(a)ZG demonstrates wandering behaviour, sadness/withdrawal and is verbally disruptive;(b)ZG has short- and long-term memory deficits and can be disoriented to time and place; (c)It is alleged that the adult physically assaulted another resident on at least two occasions in 2024;(d)ZG experiences altered perception and delusions along with visual and auditory hallucinations. The adult is subject to the restrictive practice of chemical restraint whereby he is prescribed psychotropic medication to modify behaviours due to his delusions.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	ZG [2025] QCAT 399
PARTIES:	In applications about matters concerning ZG
APPLICATION NO/S:	GAA4563-24 GAA4564-25 GAA4708-25 GAA13185-25 GAA13186-25
MATTER TYPE:	Guardianship and administration matters for adults
DELIVERED ON:	20 October 2025
HEARING DATES:	18 September 2025 and 3 October 2025
HEARD AT:	Southport and Brisbane, respectively
DECISION OF:	Member Casey
ORDERS:	1. The application for the appointment of an administrator for ZG under interim order is dismissed. 2. The application for directions in relation to ZG is dismissed. 3. The Public Guardian is appointed as guardian for ZG for the following personal matter: (a) Accommodation. 4. This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months. 5. The Public Trustee of Queensland is appointed as administrator for ZG for all financial matters. 6. The Tribunal dispenses with the requirement for the administrator to provide a financial management plan. 7. The Tribunal directs the administrator to provide accounts to the Tribunal when requested. 8. This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in twelve (12) months. 9. The following Enduring Power of Attorney for ZG is overtaken by the making of these appointments and, in accordance with s 22(2) of the *Guardianship and Administration Act2000* (Qld), can no longer be acted upon to the extent that these appointments have been made: (a) The Enduring Power of Attorney dated 3 August 2023 appointing DT as attorney for financial, personal and health matters.**
CATCHWORDS:		HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – GUARDIANSHIP AND SIMILAR APPOINTMENTS – where an adult resides in an aged care facility – where an adult appointed their daughter as Enduring Power of Attorney for personal, health and financial matters – whether there is a need for a substituted decision-maker – where the views and wishes of the adult are considered – whether the attorney is complying with the provisions of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld) – where there are concerns about the suitability of attorney and proposed appointees – whether an Enduring Power of Attorney should be revoked – whether the attorney should be removed – whether there is a need for the appointment of a substituted decision maker – where the requirements under s 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) have been met – where an Enduring Power of Attorney is overtaken for specific matters – where an interim order is sought to appoint an administrator HUMAN RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION – where the Tribunal considered whether the decision was compatible with human rights – whether the decision to overtake the enduring document limited or engaged the adult’s human rights – where the Tribunal recognises the adult’s right to privacy – where the Tribunal recognises the adult’s right to not have their reputation impacted – where the Tribunal recognised the right of a…