PP v AP[2017] QCATA 36

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. [1]
   SP (the adult) is a 90-year-old widow who resides in an aged care facility in the Wide Bay-Burnett area of Queensland.
2. [2]
   On 23 September 2009, the adult executed an enduring power of attorney (the enduring document) for financial, personal, and health matters in favour of her daughter, PP (the applicant). 
3. [3]
   Upon referral to the Public Guardian, the applicant's powers were suspended, and applications were brought to the Tribunal for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for the adult.
4. [4]
   The applications were heard on 10 December 2015.  In the result (the first decision), the Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian as guardian for a limited range of personal matters, and The Public Trustee of Queensland (the Public Trustee) as plenary administrator for the adult.  The enduring document was overtaken to the extent of the appointments made.
5. [5]
   The Tribunal also directed that the appointments be reviewed within 6 months.
6. [6]
   The applicant filed an appeal against the first decision on 8 January 2016.
7. [7]
   Thereafter, in accordance with directions in the first decision, the Tribunal initiated reviews of the appointments, which were heard on 25 May 2016 (the second decision), with the applicant present at that hearing.
8. [8]
   The second decision continued the appointments of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee.
9. [9]
   The applicant's appeal is concerned with the first decision.  The appointments made by that decision are no longer in existence.  The appointments made in the first decision have been overtaken or subsumed by the second decision.
10. [10]
    Even if the appeal against the first decision were to be allowed, the appointments made in the second decision will stand unaffected as the second decision is not the subject of an appeal.  There is no reasonable prospect that the applicant or the adult will obtain any substantive relief in the appeal against the first decision as the appointments made in that decision are no longer in existence.  In essence, the efforts of the applicant to overturn the first decision are, in these circumstances, futile. 
11. [11]
    Indeed, the applicant's material indicates her agreement with the outcome of the first decision and the necessity for the appointment of independent decision-makers for a limited time.  At the appeal hearing, the applicant acknowledged that her ultimate complaint lies with the second decision and, but for a misunderstanding in communications with registry staff, the second decision is where she would have directed her appeal.
12. [12]
    It remains open for the applicant to commence an appeal against the second decision.
13. [13]
    In any event, unless there is some compelling or persuasive reason why it should, the Appeal Tribunal is disinclined to determine an appeal in a case where there is no longer a controversy to be settled by adjudication.^[1]  Examples of compelling or persuasive reasons include whether there is an issue of public importance whereby a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage,^[2] or where it is necessary to provide a guide to the Tribunal and parties for the future, or whether an error has caused substantial injustice to the applicant.^[3]
14. [14]
    In her written and verbal submissions in the appeal proceeding, no compelling or persuasive reasons were given to the Appeal Tribunal to satisfy the Appeal Tribunal that it would be necessary or even appropriate to determine the appeal of the first decision, let alone to allow the appeal if it were to determine the appeal as the outcome of any such appeal would be futile. 
15. [15]
    For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed, and order is made accordingly.