Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
GDLA v GMG QCATA 18
GDLA v GMG & ors  QCATA 18
On the papers
Senior Member Stilgoe OAM
6 February 2017
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MENTAL HEALTH – GUARDIANS, COMMITTEES, ADMINISTRATORS, MANAGERS AND RECEIVERS – APPOINTMENT – where children appointed as administrators for mother – where sibling not appointed appealed decision – whether an eligible person – whether tribunal should grant leave to appeal – whether grounds for leave to appeal
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) s 163(1), s 163(3)(A)(viii)
Pickering v McArthur  QCA 294
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
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
- GDA is an elderly lady who now lives in residential aged care after a severe stroke that left her unable to attend to her own affairs. Her son, GMG, filed an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator. The tribunal appointed GMG, GDSD and RAL administrator’s for GDA. They are three of GDA’s eight children. The application for a guardian was withdrawn.
- GDLA is another of GDA’s children. He lives in the family home. He wants to appeal the tribunal’s decision. Because GDLA was not a party to the hearing before the tribunal, he must first establish that he has a right to appeal.
- An eligible person may appeal a tribunal’s decision. An ‘eligible person’ is the person who is the subject of the application (GDA), the applicant (GMG), a person proposed for appointment, or a person whose power was changed or removed by the tribunal.
- GDLA is none of these. The tribunal may, however, give a person leave to appeal. The tribunal must, therefore, consider the application for leave to appeal on general principles. Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.
Is there a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error?
- GDLA does not point to any error of the tribunal. He does not submit, for example, that GDA had capacity. He does not submit that his siblings are inappropriate appointees. Instead, his submissions focus only on the financial implications of the administrators’ decision to ask him to pay rent while he lives in the family home.
- There is no reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error.
Is an appeal necessary to correct a substantial injustice?
- GDLA was given notice of the tribunal hearing. He could have attended, but he did not do so. He could have been actively involved in the administration of his mother’s affairs but he is not. The administrators’ decision to charge GDLA rent is a matter between the administrators and GDLA. It is not a ‘substantial injustice’ that warrants the tribunal’s intervention.
- There is no reasonably arguable case that the tribunal was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
- Published Case Name:
GDLA v GMG, GDSD and RAL
- Shortened Case Name:
GDLA v GMG
 QCATA 18
Senior Member Stilgoe
06 Feb 2017
|Event||Citation or File||Date||Notes|
|Primary Judgment|| QCATA 18||06 Feb 2017||Leave to appeal refused: Senior Member Stilgoe.|
|Notice of Appeal Filed||File Number: Appeal No 2220/17||03 Mar 2017||-|
|Appeal Determined (QCA)|| QCA 228||10 Oct 2017||Application for leave to appeal refused: Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Jackson J.|
|Special Leave Refused (HCA)|| HCASL 45||21 Mar 2018||Special Leave Refused by Keane and Edelman JJ.|