BSA [2014] QCAT 206

CITATION: BSA [2014] QCAT 206 PARTIES: BSA APPLICATION NUMBERS: GAA1996-14; GAA2983-14 MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters for adults HEARING DATE: 24 April 2014 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Casey DELIVERED ON: 24 April 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: GUARDIANSHIP 1. The Adult Guardian is appointed as guardian for BSA for decisions about the following personal matters: (a) Accommodation; (b) With whom BSA has contact and/or visits; (c) Health care; (d) Provision of services; (e) Day-to-day issues, including, for example, diet and dress. 2. This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in five (5) years. ADMINISTRATION 3. The Public Trustee of Queensland is appointed as administrator for BSA for all financial matters. 4. The administrator is to provide a financial management plan to the Tribunal within six (6) months. 5. The Tribunal directs the administrator to provide accounts to the Tribunal when requested. 6. This appointment of The Public Trustee of Queensland remains current until further order of the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal directs the administrator to -- 1 of 12 -- 2 provide accounts to the Tribunal's approved examiners, Vincents Chartered Accountants, on the second anniversary of the initial appointment and every five (5) years thereafter. ENDURING POWER OF ATTORNEY 8. The following Enduring Power of Attorney for BSA is revoked pursuant to s 116(d) of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 and s 82(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000: (a) The Enduring Power of Attorney dated 12 October 2010 appointing BR and BS as attorneys for financial, personal and health matters CATCHWORDS: Capacity of Adult - GAA Act – Enduring Power of Attorney - POA Act – where an adult is in a vulnerable situation in regard to financial exploitation – where the attorneys’ actions have come under investigation by the Adult Guardian Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 Powers of Attorney Act 1998 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): The following parties attended the hearing via videoconference: BSA adult AH applicant and social worker MK cultural liaison officer for the adult GN elder KV aunt of the adult The following parties attended the hearing in person: BR Enduring Power of Attorney and friend of adult BS Enduring Power of Attorney and friend of adult PM delegate of the Office of the Adult Guardian MM, a representative from the Office of the Public Trustee, attended the hearing by telephone. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] BSA (the adult) is a 48 year old indigenous woman who resides in Department of Housing accommodation in Mt Isa with her aunt / carer. [2] On 9 September 2008 the adult was involved in a single vehicle high- speed road traffic accident in which she sustained significant physical injuries including paraplegia. -- 2 of 12 -- 3 [3] On 12 October 2010 BSA appointed her friends, BR and his daughter, BS, as her joint attorneys for personal/health and financial matters. [4] In February 2011 the adult’s personal injury claim settled, with the adult receiving a distribution of $1,188,747 after fees and costs. [5] On 26 February 2014 the Office of the Adult Guardian received a referral to investigate the actions of the attorneys in response to allegations that BR was not managing the adult’s funds adequately, appropriately and in her best interests. [6] The Tribunal received an application by AH, a social worker from Central and North West Queensland Medicare Local, on 28 February 2014. AH was seeking the appointment of the Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for the adult. [7] On 28 February 2014, upon being satisfied that urgent action was required, the Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for the adult for all financial matters. The appointment was to remain current for three months or, if the Tribunal were to make a further order in this matter, until the date of the further order, whichever was the sooner. [8] On 28 March 2014, the Tribunal revoked the appointment of the Public Trustee of Queensland and initiated an application for the appointment of a guardian for the adult. [9] Consequently, the applications for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for the adult were heard in Brisbane on 24 April 2014. Does BSA have capacity to make personal and financial decisions? [10] The Tribunal is required to determine capacity as at the date of hearing in accordance with section 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (the Act), as the Tribunal must be satisfied that the adult has impaired capacity before it can further consider an application for the review of the appointment of an administrator for the adult. [11] BSA is presumed to have capacity in accordance with section 7 of the Act and general principle 1 of schedule 1 under the Act. The Tribunal considered the medical evidence and submissions from the parties to determine if the presumption of capacity has been rebutted for the adult. [12] The Tribunal’s medical evidence includes a report dated 20 March 2014 by Dr Sandra Peters, a general practitioner, who stated that the adult sustained a brain injury in the motor vehicle accident of 9 September 2008 with resultant cognitive impairment, including short-term memory loss. Dr Peters submitted the adult ‘cannot process complex information and has no appreciation of the consequences of decisions made. She can participate in discussions with simple one or two option choices where consequence of decision made is immediate rather than delayed’. -- 3 of 12 -- 4 Dr Peters further states that the adult is ‘easily manipulated by family members regarding financial matters’ and that ‘moneys transferred to her for living expenses (basic food supplies and medical aids) are spent inappropriately at times’ and that ‘this occurs frequently but BSA will not complain about extended family members’ behaviour’. Dr Peters provides the opinion the adult is unable to understand the criteria necessary to execute or revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA), and that the adult lacks the capacity to manage complex personal matters and all financial matters. [13] In a letter dated 21 February 2014 Dr Peters submits the adult achieved a score of 13/30 on the Mini Mental State Examination administered on the same day. Dr Peters provides that ‘even if allowances are made for literacy she would not be likely to score in the normal range’. [14] BSA contributed minimally to the hearing and was reliant on communication support from the cultural liaison officer in her attempts to respond to questioning. Despite the variant nature of questions in relation to her personal and financial matters, BSA consistently responded by indicating her wish to remain in Mt Isa in suitable accommodation. Her utterances included ‘I just want my house’ and ‘has to be a wheelchair one in Mt Isa’. She told the Tribunal ‘annoying me - the money business’ and ‘I couldn’t buy anything’. [15] In her application to the Tribunal AH provided the adult was unable to explain how her decision makers were appointed and how her finances were managed. The applicant stated the Office of the Adult Guardian had been contacted in relation to concerns about possible neglect of the adult, along with possible financial mismanagement or abuse. [16] At the hearing the applicant confirmed her written submissions. She stated the adult ‘brought her concerns’ to her in late February when she received a notice to vacate her accommodation. AH stated the adult’s ‘living conditions are very poor’ and that she has ‘no food most of the time’. She further provided the adult relies on friends for food and medicine and that there had been occasions when the adult did not have access to catheter bags due to ‘a complication with her account at the pharmacy’. She stated the adult had expressed she had ‘worries, stress and anxiety about the future’ and that these concerns had not been alleviated, (in the context of an attempt by the adult’s attorney’s in March 2014 to relocate her to south-east Queensland in order to receive care in a residential aged care facility in either Brisbane or Cherbourg). [17] In their oral submissions the attorneys did not challenge the medical evidence. They stated the adult’s decision-making capacity had ‘absolutely’ deteriorated over the time they had been acting as the adult’s attorneys. Both attorneys, who reside separately in south-east Queensland, said they had encountered difficulty making decisions for the adult once she completed her post-accident rehabilitation in Brisbane and returned to Mt Isa in 2011. BR further provided ‘BSA is a victim. She is living a life she doesn’t need to live’. -- 4 of 12 -- 5 [18] At the hearing MK, the adult’s cultural liaison officer, provided a cultural perspective, submitting the adult is ‘obligated to family’ and that ‘we don’t say no’. Conclusion [19] The evidence establishes that BSA has cognitive deficits including short- term memory difficulties and auditory comprehension difficulties. [20] Due to her cognitive deficits, BSA is unable to understand the nature and effect of decisions in relation to her personal and financial matters, including the complex issues of revoking or appointing an Enduring Power of Attorney. [21] While the adult is aware of her cultural obligations, she is vulnerable to influence and exploitation, to the extent that she has, on occasions, been bereft of food and medical supplies. [22] Having regard to the medical, written and oral evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the presumption contained in General Principle 1 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 that presumes that the adult has capacity for personal and financial matters is rebutted. Did BSA have capacity to enter into the Enduring Power of Attorney dated 12 October 2010? [23] Both the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 and the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (schedule 1, s 1) echo the general law that an adult is presumed to have capacity when executing or revoking an Enduring Power of Attorney. [24] The Tribunal observes that the Enduring Power of Attorney dated 12 October 2010 was made after the adult’s motor vehicle accident and that Dr Peters’ report dated 20 March 2014 includes that the adult sustained a head injury in the motor vehicle accident. In contrast to the above evidence is that of Dr Scott Campbell, a neurosurgeon, whose letter dated 3 December 2010, less than two months after the Enduring Power of Attorney was made, includes that ‘there was no head injury’ sustained by the adult in the accident. In addition, Dr Campbell provided the opinion the adult ‘is capable of instructing a solicitor properly and capable of exercising reasonable judgment upon a possible settlement at a capacity to appreciate the nature and extent of her claim for compensation. She is capable of understanding the proposed settlement and the issues regarding liability’. [25] Notwithstanding the contradictory evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the adult sustaining, or not sustaining, a brain injury in the motor vehicle accident of 2008, Dr Campbell’s evidence does not have regard to the adult’s decision-making capacity for simple and complex personal and financial matters, including the complex matter in relation to the adult’s -- 5 of 12 -- 6 ability to understand the criteria necessary to execute or revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney. Conclusion [26] The Tribunal determines there is insufficient and inconclusive medical evidence before the Tribunal to rebut the presumption that BSA had capacity to appoint Enduring Powers of Attorney on 12 October 2010. [27] The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the Enduring Power of Attorney of 12 October 2010 is valid. What personal decisions are required for the adult? [28] The adult currently resides in Department of Housing accommodation in Mt Isa with her aunt and carer, KV, and KV’s 84 year old mother. [29] The Department of Housing has advised the adult that, based on her significant assets, she is ineligible to remain in her accommodation and that she is to vacate the property by June 2014. [30] Decisions are required in relation to the adult’s accommodation. The adult wishes to remain in Mt Isa to be close to her elderly mother and other family members, and to remain in close proximity to her traditional home in and around the areas of Lake Nash and Urandangie. The adult has told the applicant that she has cultural and spiritual ties to traditional land and that if she were to reside in Brisbane she would be unable to fulfil her cultural obligations, (for example, funerals), and that this may have adverse consequences for her in the form of ‘curses or ill luck’. [31] Health care decisions are required to ensure the adult receives appropriate treatment for a number of physical health conditions in the context of paraplegia, permanent suprapubic catheter, intermittent pressure sores, hypertension and dyslipidaemia, as outlined by Dr Sandra Peters in her report dated 20 March 2014. [32] Ongoing decisions are necessary in relation to the nature and extent of the support services to be provided to the adult and such decisions are dependant on the adult’s accommodation and health care requirements, along with her day-to-day needs. [33] The adult has family members, including three children, and friends who would like to have contact and/or visits with her. Decisions are necessary in relation to the nature, (including location, duration and frequency), of contact and/or visits the adult has with others. One of the adult’s children resides in the Mt Isa area, one resides in Gin Gin and the adult’s youngest child, 15 year old T, is in the care of BS in south-east Queensland. Conclusion [34] The adult has a number of complex co-morbidities. It is essential that the adult be accommodated where she can receive care and service provision -- 6 of 12 -- 7 commensurate with her needs. She requires a decision maker to ensure she receives appropriate medical treatment. It is necessary for the adult to have maximum opportunity to maintain supportive existing relationships. [35] Pursuant to section 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 the Tribunal is satisfied there is a need for decisions in relation to accommodation, provision of services, health care, day-to-day issues, (including, for example, diet and dress), and with whom BSA has contact and/or visits. [36] There must be an adequate and effective decision making regime in place for BSA as otherwise her needs will not be met and her interests will not be protected. What financial decisions are required for the adult? [37] The adult’s attorneys and BRZ, a solicitor, provided information to the Senior Investigations Officer from the Office of the Adult Guardian in relation to the adult’s financial matters. This information was, in turn, submitted to the Tribunal. [38] The evidence in relation to the adult’s financial circumstances is inconsistent. The adult has assets of approximately $1,086,847, which include an investment portfolio of $680,166, (which appears to be held in a trust), and cash assets approximating $406,681, however the Tribunal observes $397,396.50 of the funds are held in a Bank of Queensland websavings account in the name of BRZ and Associates. In addition, the adult owns a motor vehicle along with furniture and effects. [39] According to her attorneys the adult’s income stems from her investments. They provided the adult is precluded from receiving Centrelink benefits for a period of 20 years. [40] The attorneys submitted they automatically transfer a total of $900 per week for living expenses, over four separate days, into a Commonwealth Bank account held in the adult’s name, and that they transfer additional funds upon the adult’s request. [41] The attorneys further submitted they manage the payment of the adult’s expenses in relation to her accommodation, utilities and motor vehicle, along with medical and pharmaceutical expenses. The attorneys stated the adult’s funds are also utilized to pay for educational fees and flights between Brisbane and Mt Isa for her youngest child, T, aged15 years. [42] The adult has no liabilities. [43] A claim in relation to the release of the adult’s superannuation funds is currently underway. Conclusion -- 7 of 12 -- 8 [44] The adult has assets, income and expenses that require identification, protection and management to ensure her needs are met and that funds are available for accommodation and care expenses well into the future. [45] There must be an adequate and effective decision making regime in place for BSA for financial matters as otherwise her needs will not be met and her interests will not be protected. Is the current decision-making regime meeting the adult’s needs and protecting her interests? [46] The fact that attorneys have been appointed under an Enduring Power of Attorney is especially relevant in determining whether the adult’s needs would not be met without an appointment. The Tribunal must consider whether the appointed attorneys should continue in their roles or whether the appointments of the attorneys should be revoked under s 116 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998, or be made subject to the appointment of a guardian or administrator under s 22 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. [47] At the hearing BSA stated she wanted ‘trustees’ and ‘blue shirt’ (indicating the delegate of the Office of the Adult Guardian) to make her decisions instead of BR and BS. [48] The investigation conducted by the Office of the Adult Guardian concluded that ‘the allegation that BR is not managing the adult’s funds in a way that is adequate and appropriate and in her best interests is not substantiated’ and that, based upon their investigation, there was insufficient evidence to suggest the adult’s decision to appoint her attorneys be modified. The investigation report also stated ‘it is not clear as to how the funds deposited are being utilised and by whom in Mt Isa’. [49] The attorneys informed the Tribunal they commenced acting under the Enduring Power of Attorney immediately in relation to personal and financial matters, and that they had made decisions in consultation with the adult. The Tribunal observes the submission dated 6 March 2014 by BRZ, a solicitor, that BR ‘is of indigenous heritage and is acutely aware of the significant cultural attitude towards the sharing of personal funds and was concerned that monies were being given away or taken by other members of the community’ (p.5). [50] In relation to personal matters, the attorneys stated they had negotiated with the adult and her family members, along with support services and accommodation providers (such as the Laura Johnson residential care facility in Mt Isa and the Queensland Department of Housing), and that the adult had relocated several times since returning to Mt Isa in 2011. [51] The attorneys described the difficulties they had encountered in enabling the adult to receive appropriate accommodation, service provision and healthcare since that time. They submitted that prior to KV caring for the adult from 2012, the adult had moved between her Department of Housing -- 8 of 12 -- 9 accommodation and Laura Johnson residential aged care facility. The attorneys reported that between 2011 and 2012 the adult had shared her accommodation with other persons and that spinal care nurses withdrew their in-home support at that time due to fears for their own safety from such persons. [52] BR told the Tribunal that in 2011, soon after the adult returned to Mt Isa, the attorneys transferred $40,000 of the adult’s funds, upon the adult’s request, to an account that she could access with a keycard. He said the funds were to be accessed by family members to assist the adult in purchasing a motor vehicle, and that the balance of the funds was to be used for the adult’s purposes as the need arose. He said an aunt of the adult accessed the keycard and purchased a vehicle for the adult along with a vehicle for herself with the released funds. [53] The attorneys said they have been continued to be concerned about the adult’s living conditions since she has been in KV’s care. KV’s daughter has now left the accommodation, after taking up residence for 6 months in 2013, and KV’s mother has subsequently moved in. BR submitted the attorneys have strived to provide the adult with ‘better health care’, ‘improve her health’ and ‘improve her life with her children’ and that he ‘was never able to do that’. He said he always responded to requests from the adult and KV for additional funds to be transferred to the adult, so the adult could be afforded essential items and not ‘go without’ as ‘she needs to have access to her money’. BR further stated he ‘limitedly’ protected the adult, by only allowing a certain amount of money to be provided to her at any one time. He said he had considered engaging service providers to support the adult to access essential items, such as food, through a voucher system, but decided against such actions as he thought they would have been ‘open to abuse’. [54] In relation to the Department of Housing accommodation, it is BR’s evidence that the Department of Housing had been ‘well-informed’ of the adult’s assets and that the department’s notice to vacate the property in or around February 2012 prompted the attorneys to attempt to relocate the adult to south-east Queensland. He stated the roles of the attorneys had become ‘more difficult’ – since they arranged for the adult to be relocated to Brisbane and that he has encountered ‘a lot of difficulty’ liaising with the adult through KV. He said it was ‘easily a month’ since he had been able to talk with the adult. BS confirmed the communication difficulties adding that the attorneys ‘didn’t realize she didn’t want to go’. [55] The attorneys told the Tribunal they kept all records of financial transactions made on the adult’s behalf. The bank records indicate multiple transfers from the adult’s account to the accounts of the attorneys. The attorneys explained these transactions were reimbursements to themselves, as they often transferred money from their own accounts to one of the adult’s accounts in response to the many requests for additional living expenses. They said they conducted the transactions in this manner so that the adult could have access to cash as soon as possible after her requests. The Tribunal observes the purpose -- 9 of 12 -- 10 of the multiple reimbursements is not transparent in the bank records. [56] BR stated the attorneys sought advice from BRZ and a company entitled ‘AT’ when the adult initially received the damages award. He said the attorneys acted on the advice they received and made the decision to invest the greater portion of the adult’s funds in the investment portfolio. [57] The attorneys provided erroneous and inconsistent evidence in relation to the remainder of the adult’s assets. Only approximately $9,000 of the adult’s cash assets are invested in her name. A Bank of Queensland websavings account statement for the period 1 January 2014 to 28 February 2014 shows that $397,396.50 is held in the account of BRZ and Associates. Contrary to the written evidence BR told the Tribunal a portion of the adult’s funds is held in the trust account of BRZ and Associates as he advised the solicitor to ‘hold onto it’. He said the solicitor may have invested some of the adult’s funds in a term deposit. Both attorneys were unaware of the nature and extent of the adult’s funds that were held solely in her name. The Tribunal observes that in BRZ’s submission dated 6 March 2014 to the Adult Guardian, for the purposes of their investigation, the websavings account was described as being ‘in the name of BRZ and Associates as Trustee for BSA’ (p. 8). [58] BR stated ‘we’re in water that’s pretty deep for us’, and ‘I don’t know how to fix it’. He also stated ‘I’ve got no control how she lives while she’s in Mt Isa’ and ‘I don’t want to put any pressure on her’. BR also stated, with reference to his role as the adult’s attorney, ‘if she stays up there (in Mt Isa) I’m happy to relinquish it’. He further added, ‘it’s a proven thing; we cannot protect her interests’. [59] BS provided a different opinion, stating that while she and BR have ‘done all we can’ the situation could be ‘turned around’. She stated she could not ‘see things changing if the EPA is handed over and things get more difficult for BSA’. [60] BS further informed the Tribunal that the adult’s 15 year old son, T, has been in her care since January 2008 under an informal arrangement between herself, the adult and the child’s father. BS said she utilizes the adult’s funds to pay for T’s school fees and his flights to Mt Isa to visit the adult. She stated the care arrangement had not been formalized, and that ‘I don’t know how you’d formalize it’. She told the Tribunal ‘both parents are in agreement’ and did not consider a possibility of how her role as the adult’s attorney could be conflicted if the adult wished to change the current arrangements, stating ‘we’ve never held that over her’. [61] The representative of the Public Trustee of Queensland informed the Tribunal that no formal action had been undertaken to secure the adult’s assets under the interim order. He expressed concern in relation to the actions of the attorneys, stating that when the Public Trustee of Queensland is appointed as administrator for an adult who has been awarded damages, financial advice is sought within a period of 90 days, as there is a 90 day window of opportunity to establish superannuation -- 10 of 12 -- 11 investment, if recommended by the advisor, which would gain considerable taxation benefits for the adult. He submitted the attorneys missed this valuable opportunity and that there may be further adverse taxation consequences for the adult as a result of the attorneys’ decision to place some of the adult’s funds in the solicitor’s account. The representative said the attorneys did not appear to formulate a budget based on the adult’s current and future needs with reference to the nature and extent of her disability, and that discretionary spending may have been better managed through engagement with support services. The representative provided the opinion that while the attorneys did not understand their obligations and purpose they had demonstrated an intention to act in the adult’s best interests. [62] The delegate of the Office of the Adult Guardian, having heard the oral evidence, submitted that the attorneys, as ‘lay people’, attempted to do the best they could in very difficult and complex circumstances. He observed the attorneys acted upon legal advice and did not undertake ‘unilateral action’, and that, with the benefit of hindsight, the attorneys may have taken ‘better action’. The delegate concluded by acknowledging the ‘potential need for more formal arrangements for the more complex issues’. [63] The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to the Powers of Attorney Act 1998. The Tribunal had regard for General Principal 8 contained within Schedule 1 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 that provides that the importance of maintaining an adult’s existing supportive relationships must be taken into account by decision-makers. The Tribunal also had regard for the appropriateness considerations set out in section 15(1)(c) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 provide that the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the adult’s interests are likely to conflict with those of a substituted decision-maker. [64] The evidence is that while the adult not resided in close proximity to them, the attorneys have been challenged in their attempts to provide the adult with appropriate accommodation, support services, health care and day- to-day requirements, in the context of the adult’s social and financial vulnerability. [65] The recent attempt of the attorneys to move the adult away from her traditional home has caused the adult stress and anxiety to the extent that she sought assistance from services to thwart their attempts. These events have further diminished the poor communication processes between the adult and her family members towards the attorneys and have led to the adult’s expressed wish for the Adult Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland to be appointed as her decision makers. [66] Consequently, based on the historical factors and the inadequacy of the current situation, the Tribunal is not satisfied the attorneys will be able to act in a way that is consistent with the legislative requirements, including the General Principles in relation to the adult’s personal decision making. -- 11 of 12 -- 12 [67] Furthermore, having regard to the appropriateness considerations, the Tribunal is not satisfied BS and BR would be able to make decisions in relation to the adult’s personal and financial matters without a conflict of interest should such decisions impact on BS’s care responsibilities to the adult’s 15 year old son. [68] Specifically in relation to their financial decision making, the attorneys have not fulfilled their legislative obligations, despite their efforts. The attorneys inadequately protected the adult’s cash assets while the adult has had insufficient funds for necessary items. The attorneys allowed for the investment $397,396.50 of adult’s funds, as at 28 February 2014, to be invested in the name of BRZ and Associates. Under these arrangements the majority of the adult’s cash assets are not protected, as they are not under the management of the attorneys. In addition, the actions of the attorneys may adversely impact the adult’s taxation obligations. Conclusion [69] Based on the written and oral evidence, the Tribunal determines the attorneys have been unable to discharge effective substituted decision- making for the adult as they failed to adequately meet her needs and protect her interests. [70] Therefore, the Enduring Power of Attorney dated 12 October 2010 appointing BR and BS jointly as attorneys for financial and personal/health matters is revoked pursuant to s 116(d) of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998. [71] The Tribunal is of the view that an independent guardian is the only entity capable of complying with the General Principles, liaise with all interested parties, assess the relative merits of options for decisions on personal matters and make decisions that best meet the adult’s needs. In this respect, as the Adult Guardian is an independent decision maker with extensive skills and experience, the Tribunal appoints the Adult Guardian as guardian for the adult for the matters mentioned. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in five years. [72] The application before the Tribunal proposed the appointment of the Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for the adult. The Public Trustee of Queensland is an independent and experienced administrator. The Tribunal is satisfied that the appointment of The Public Trustee of Queensland is appropriate to ensure that the adult’s financial needs are met and her financial interests are protected. The Public Trustee of Queensland is appropriate to investigate the actions of the attorneys in relation to how the majority of the adult’s cash assets, currently held in the account of BRZ and Associates, were invested prior to 1 January 2014. The Tribunal appoints the Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for BSA, for all financial matters, until further order of the Tribunal. -- 12 of 12 --