Health, Mental Health and Guardianship

This case related to a decision about costs in a remitted hearing. In considering whether the Tribunal was bound to follow the doctrine of precedent, Member Gordon was prompted to consider whether the Tribunal was exercising judicial functions or administrative functions. The Tribunal considered that where a tribunal acts in an administrative capacity, it is less likely that the doctrine of precedent would apply. Member Gordon noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had prompted the Tribunal to consider when it is acting in an administrative capacity rather than judicial capacity but made no further reference to the legislation.

The case concerned an application for interim orders seeking urgent cessation of the Public Trustee of Queensland’s appointment as administrator for RFJ for all financial decisions except for day-to-day finances and Centrelink payments. In dismissing the application, the Tribunal acknowledged the ongoing appointment would limit RFJ’s right to freedom of movement (s 19), property rights (s 24), the right to privacy and reputation (s 25), and the right to liberty and security of person (s 29) but was satisfied the limits were reasonable and justified, particularly in the absence of urgent and compelling evidence to counter the initial appointment.

This case involved an appeal of a Mental Health Review Tribunal decision to approve treatments of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for the appellant against her wishes. The Court had to consider whether the appellant could provide informed consent and whether ECT was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court acknowledged the appellant’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy (section 25), right to liberty and security of person (section 29), right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 30), and right to access health services without discrimination (section 37(1)) and considered the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was consistent with its task under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld).

The decision relates to a man in his mid-60s with alcoholic dementia, PGV, who applied to the Tribunal for a declaration about his capacity and a revocation of the appointment of his guardians. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right not to be treated in a degrading way (section 17) and his right to freedom of movement (section 19) in the context of determining whether a guardian should continue to be appointed.

This matter concerned an application by a journalist for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to seek orders authorising the publication of information about guardianship proceedings in a way that identified the person to whom the application and orders were about.

This case concerned applications filed by Dr Graeme Walker about LKZ, a 28-year-old woman who is 10 weeks pregnant and has impaired capacity. Dr Walker seeks the Tribunal’s approval for LKZ to undergo a pregnancy termination and a medical procedure which would involve the surgical removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes.

This matter concerned an application for the appointment of the applicant's son as her administrator as her appointed attorneys sought leave to resign. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s capacity to revoke the appointment and her capacity for financial decisions.

This case concerned the decision of the appointment for the position of public guardian and administrator of JSC where there were separate applications by both the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as well as the Mother and Grandmother of JSC. In making an order that the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee be appointed these roles pending a review in three years, the Tribunal considered JSC’s right to privacy (section 25), freedom of movement (section 19), property rights (section 24) and protection from being subjected to medical treatment without her full, free and informed consent.

This matter concerns an application by JL’s daughter, CL, to be appointed JL’s sole guardian and administrator. JL had previously appointed her son, AL, under Victorian legislation, and then subsequently appointed CL under Queensland legislation to act as her guardian “severally”. The Tribunal found that CL had been validly appointed to be JL’s sole guardian.

This case concerned a review of an application seeking to appoint the Public Advocate as guardian and the Public Trustee as administrator for PC by DB (PC’s carer and long-time friend and partner) and to remove a 2001 enduring power of attorney appointing PC’s daughters.