RAM

CITATION:

RAM [2011] QCAT 239

PARTIES:

RAM

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAA9274-10 GAA9275-10 GAA9279-10

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

C Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Application for the appointment of a guardian is dismissed.

2. Application for the appointment of an administrator is dismissed.

3. Application for a declaration about capacity is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION – where adult resides outside of Australia – no jurisdiction – early end to proceedings

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties under section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Applications have been lodged with the tribunal seeking the appointment of a guardian and an administrator for RAM. At the time the applications were lodged, RAM was not residing in Australia. He had migrated to Australia in 1993 but for reasons not stated he had returned to Bangladesh. The applicants stated an intention to bring RAM back to Australia where all his family are now residing.
According to medical reports provided to the tribunal, RAM is in poor health. Between December 2006 and March 2007 RAM was hospitalised in Bangladesh and treated for a mental illness. After being released from hospital, RAM returned to his home in a town in Bangladesh where his living conditions are very poor. Concerns for his welfare are held by his family but RAM refuses to accept help from them.
In December 2008 RAM was hospitalised again in Bangladesh. The reports are unclear as to whether RAM has been subsequently released from hospital as his postal address in the applications is at a medical clinic.
The tribunal in this case must consider whether it has jurisdiction to make an appointment for RAM. The tribunal exercises the jurisdiction given to it under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. That Act is the result of law-making power exercised by the Queensland Parliament to implement a scheme for the appointment of substitute decision makers for adults with impaired decision making capacity.

The Queensland Act has limited operation outside of Queensland. The tribunal considers that primarily laws for the peace, welfare and good government of Queensland must relate to persons who have a recognised connection to Queensland such as persons present or resident in Queensland.

RAM has resided permanently outside of Queensland for many years. He is an Australian citizen but he returned at his choice to Bangladesh and he has made his domicile in that country. The tribunal is satisfied that it has no jurisdiction to appoint decision makers for RAM while he is residing at his domicile of choice in Bangladesh. An application can be made and considered should RAM return to Queensland to live.

Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 gives the tribunal power to bring a proceeding to an early end if the tribunal considers that an application is misconceived or is lacking in substance. The tribunal considers that the applications lodged about RAM should be brought to an early end as the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider them.

The matter before the court involved an application for the appointment of a guardian, an administrator, and a declaration about capacity, in relation to an adult who was residing outside Australia. The applicant sought to have these orders made in relation to the respondent, who was her father. The Family Court of Australia was required to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to make such orders given the respondent's location. The court was also required to consider whether it was appropriate to make the orders sought given the respondent's location.

The court found that the Family Court Act did not confer jurisdiction to make orders in relation to an adult who resides outside Australia. The court further found that it was not appropriate to make the orders sought, given that the respondent resided outside Australia and there was no evidence that he had any ties to Australia. The court also found that the applicant had not established that it was in the respondent's best interests for the orders sought to be made.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for the appointment of a guardian, an administrator, and a declaration about capacity. The court found that it was not appropriate to make the orders sought given the respondent's location outside Australia and the lack of evidence of any ties to Australia. The court further found that the applicant had not established that it was in the respondent's best interests for the orders sought to be made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established