Health, Mental Health and Guardianship

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of the Queensland as guardian and administrator, respectively, for NHF, revoking a previous Enduring Power of Attorney.

This application concerned the appointment of a guardian and administrator for MXQ, the making of a confidentiality order, and the making of orders limiting information sharing with particular individuals.

This matter concerned an application to appoint a guardian and administrator for MTD under an interim order because of capacity concerns. The Tribunal found that limits on MTD’s freedom of movement (section 19) and right to privacy and reputation (section 25) that would result from an interim order, were not reasonable and justified in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This matter concerned an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for KAN. KAN had acquired significant disabilities at birth due to hospital negligence and a $5,000,000 compromise settlement of his medical negligence claim had been held and managed by a court-appointed trustee while he was a minor.

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.

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.

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].

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was raised by the CCC in a draft investigative report to the applicant’s lawyers.

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].

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.