• WMJ [2021] QCAT 283

    This case concerned a review of the guardianship and administration appointments for WMJ. The Tribunal applied the General Principles in section 11B(3) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), including, in particular, the principle that the adult is entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms that apply to those with capacity.
  • VTA [2023] QCAT 68

    The case concerned an application for interim orders for the appointment of a guardian and a guardian for restrictive practices. The adult was aged 49 years, resided in a Blue Care aged care facility and wished to move into a supported living home. A regional general manager for Blue Care had made the application due to concerns that VTA’s family members had impeded the preparation of a comprehensive positive behaviour support plan and that family involvement would also negatively impact any future transition into a supported living home.
  • HAC [2022] QCAT 104 - HAC [2022] QCAT 116

    This case concerned an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for HAC: at [1]. On the same day the application was made, an application was also made for an interim order seeking the appointment of an administrator and guardian for HAC on the basis of allegations of neglect of HAC’s care and exploitation of her property, though no evidence was tendered in support of these allegations: at [4]–[5].
    In refusing to make the interim order, A/Senior Member Traves held that the appointment of a guardian and administrator on an interim basis was a serious incursion on HAC’s human rights, and that there were no reasonable grounds for making the order: at [14]–[15].
  • Carne v Crime and Corruption Commission [2021] QSC 228

    Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was raised by the CCC in a draft investigative report to the applicant’s lawyers.
  • ZDA [2022] QCAT 167

    ZDA was a 92-year-old hospital inpatient. Her nephew and a solicitor applied for interim appointment as her guardian and administrator respectively. In dismissing their application, Member Kanowski acknowledged ZDA’s right to the freedom to choose where to live (section 19) and their property rights (in restricting their control of their property) (section 24): at [16].
  • MGT [2021] QCAT 151

    This matter concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as Guardian and Administrator respectively for MGT, in circumstances where the Public Guardian had made the accommodation decision to remove MGT from his mother’s (BC) place of residence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in acknowledging that certain fundamental human rights exist, irrespective of capacity.
  • LHM [2022] QCAT 90

    This case arose under an application for the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland to be appointed as Guardian and Administrator respectively for the adult. The Tribunal noted in its reasoning that the case was subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that appointment of guardians and administrators impose limitations on human rights.
  • IHC [2021] QCAT 141

    This case concerned several applications by IHC’s sons SHM and BHJ to be appointed as Guardian, Administrator and Enduring power of attorney. Member Casey ordered that the Public Guardian be appointed as guardian for IHC regarding accommodation and healthcare, and the Public Trustee appointed as administrator for all financial matters. In doing so, Member Casey held that this was a reasonable limitation on IHC’s human rights.
  • GNR [2022] QCAT 430

    This case considered whether consent should be given for a 21 year old female with impaired capacity to undergo a sterilisation procedure. The Tribunal referred to the adult’s right to not be subjected to medical treatment without full, free and informed consent (section 17(c)) and their right to access health services without discrimination (section 37(1)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • GI [2023] QCAT 122

    This matter concerned a woman with an intellectual disability on behalf of whom consent was sought for a hysterectomy to mitigate an increased risk of cancer. In having regard to her right to recognition before the law, freedom of movement and privacy, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, the Tribunal found that limits were reasonable and justified in consenting to the hysterectomy.


Subscribe to RSS

Research Area