CB

Case [2013] QCAT 421


CITATION: CB [2013] QCAT 421
PARTIES: CB
APPLICATION NUMBER: GAA3472-13
MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters for adults
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: C Endicott, Senior Member
DELIVERED ON: 29 May 2013
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: 1.   The application for an interim order is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:

GUARDIANSHIP – where attorneys in dispute – where evidence did not disclose an immediate risk of harm

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s 129

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. CB is 85 years of age.  She appointed three attorneys to make decisions about personal, health and financial matters on 15 October 1999.  One of the attorneys has pre-deceased CB and the other two attorneys continue in that role. 

  2. A dispute has arisen between the attorneys as to decisions about CB’s property.  In particular one attorney wants the house owned by CB to be immediately sold but the other attorney has taken steps to have the house tenanted out.  Allegations of mis-management have been raised.  There is also some dispute over care issues for CB.

  3. One of the attorneys, CE, applied to QCAT seeking the appointment of a guardian and administrator for CB.  In addition CE sought interim orders with a view to having decisions made about health and care issues and to having a decision made about the sale of the house before a new tenancy agreement was entered into. The application for the appointment for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator was opposed by the other attorney, OA, and by another member of CB’s family.  They also opposed the making of the interim orders sought by CE.

  4. QCAT has the power to appoint decision makers for adults with impaired decision making capacity. Appointments of decision makers are made after a hearing of the application and when the presumption of capacity has been rebutted. However QCAT can make an appointment of a decision maker on an interim basis for up to three months under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 without a hearing.

  5. Section 129 of that Act permits the tribunal to make an interim appointment if the tribunal is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that there is an immediate risk of harm to the welfare or property of the adult concerned.

  6. The information provided to QCAT has established that there are some disputes between the attorneys.  However it is clear that the major dispute arises from a difference of opinion as to how best to manage the financial affairs of CB.  CE contends that CB is at risk of financial loss due to the actions of OA but that contention is denied by the other attorney.  Both attorneys have provided information supporting the basis on which they have arrived at their respective opinions. 

  7. The evidence provided to the tribunal did not satisfy me that there is an immediate risk of harm to the welfare and property or assets of CB.   She is in care and being provided with services.  Her property and assets are being managed and if any losses have arisen due to a breach of the obligations of the attorneys, steps are available to make good any such loss.   It was not submitted that CB was at risk of losing her assets in the immediate future.  A hearing of the application is likely to be arranged within the next three months when the issues of the need for an appointment and who should be appointed can be considered and determined by the tribunal.

  8. Orders made under section 129 are discretionary in nature. An interim appointment should only be made when a relevant risk of harm is established on the evidence. An interim appointment should not be made merely because it would be more convenient than waiting for a hearing in the normal course of events.

  9. The application for interim orders under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 is dismissed.

Details
AGLC
CB [2013] QCAT 421
Case
[2013] QCAT 421
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter involved an application for an interim order by CE, one of the appointed attorneys of CB, who is 85 years of age and has impaired decision-making capacity. The application sought the appointment of a guardian and administrator for CB, as well as interim orders to address health, care, and property issues. The application was opposed by the other attorney, OA, and another family member of CB. The dispute between the attorneys primarily revolved around the management of CB's property, specifically the sale of her house.

The legal issues in this case centered on the threshold requirement for QCAT to make an interim appointment of a decision maker for an adult with impaired decision-making capacity. Under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, QCAT can make an interim appointment if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that there is an immediate risk of harm to the welfare or property of the adult concerned. The tribunal also needed to consider whether interim orders should be made to address health, care, and property issues.

In making its decision, QCAT found that while there were disputes between the attorneys, the major dispute was about how best to manage CB's financial affairs. The tribunal did not find the evidence to be sufficient to establish an immediate risk of harm to CB's welfare or property. The evidence showed that CB was receiving care and that her property and assets were being managed. Moreover, any losses due to a breach of the attorneys' obligations could be addressed through available steps. As a result, QCAT dismissed the application for interim orders under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000.

The tribunal indicated that a hearing of the application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator would likely be arranged within the next three months, at which time the issues of the need for an appointment and who should be appointed could be considered and determined. The tribunal emphasized that interim appointments should only be made when a relevant risk of harm is established on the evidence and should not be made merely for the sake of convenience.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.