WEM v WLY
[2018] QCATA 92
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- WEM v WLY[2018] QCATA 92
- Add to List
WEM v WLY[2018] QCATA 92
WEM v WLY[2018] QCATA 92
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | WEM v WLY & Ors [2018] QCATA 92 |
PARTIES: | WEM (applicant) |
v | |
WLY (first respondent) THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN (second respondent) THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND (third respondent) SMM (fourth respondent) | |
APPLICATION NO: | APL093-18 |
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NOS: | GAA12810-17 GAA12811-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
DELIVERED ON: | 6 July 2018 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Ann Fitzpatrick |
ORDERS: | The application to stay a decision of the Tribunal dated 21 March 2018 is dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEALS AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where no proper basis for stay established – where stay dismissed – where applicant sought a stay of the decision to appoint Public Trustee as administrator – where stay sought due to imposition of Public Trustee’s fees – where stay sought due to Public Trustee’s ability to undo planning and financial structures in place – where stay sought due to Public Trustee’s changes to payment account Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 12 Cook’s Constructions Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Aust Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 322 |
REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | Self-represented |
First Respondent: Second Respondent: Third Respondent: Fourth Respondent: | Self-represented Not represented Clinton James Miles, Director Disability Services Not represented |
APPEARANCES: | |
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). | |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]The Applicant has made an Application to Stay a Decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal dated 21 March 2018 appointing the Public Trustee of Queensland (the Public Trustee) pursuant to section 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) (GAA Act) as administrator for all financial matters for SMM.
- [2]The Applicant and the Public Trustee have filed written submissions in this matter. The First Respondent has filed written submissions in support of the submissions made by the Applicant.
- [3]The Applicant has raised a number of grounds for her Application. The Public Trustee has responded to each ground.
- [4]The first ground relates to the imposition of the Public Trustee’s fees pending the outcome of the appeal. The Public Trustee says that SMM is incurring minimal administration fees and that she is eligible for consideration as a recipient of the Public Trustee’s Community Services Obligation fee rebate. I accept the submission of the Public Trustee and do not consider the imposition of minimal fees is a sufficiently serious issue to impose a stay on the decision of 21 March 2018.
- [5]The second ground is that the decision gave the Public Trustee powers to undo the current strategic planning and financial structures that have been put in place to secure SMM’s financial future, health and lifestyle care. That is a matter which will be considered on the hearing of the appeal in this matter. In the meantime, the Public Trustee is acting in accordance with the decision of 21 March 2018. I accept the Public Trustee is a competent administrator for SMM and will act in accordance with an administrator’s fiduciary obligations under the GAA Act.
- [6]The final ground is that the Public Trustee has made administrative changes to SMM’s payment account for her pension and that affects payment of her monthly account to her aged care facility and other direct debits. The Public Trustee submits that it has redirected her pension to pay her nursing home account. However, it has agreed to leave arrangements for direct debits as previously set up until the outcome of the appeal. I accept that this is a satisfactory arrangement and meets the concerns of the applicant.
- [7]I do not consider that the applicant has established a proper basis for a stay. Relevantly, there is no basis to find that the appeal will prove abortive if the appellant succeeds and a stay is not granted.
- [8]The matters raised by the applicant do not outweigh the consideration that the primary decision should not be treated as merely provisional.[1]
- [9]For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
Footnotes
[1]Cook’s Constructions Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Aust Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 322.