BGMJ [2013] QCAT 461

CITATION: BGMJ [2013] QCAT 461 PARTIES: BGMJ APPLICATION NUMBER: GAA6671-13; GAA6672-13; GAA6673-13 MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters for adults HEARING DATE: 9 August 2013 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: L Clarkson, Member DELIVERED ON: 9 August 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. The withdrawal of the application for a Closure Order has been approved by the Tribunal pursuant to s 46 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. 2. The withdrawal of the application for a Non-Publication Order has been approved by the Tribunal pursuant to s 46 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. 3. The Tribunal orders that pursuant to s 109 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 the following information is confidential and must not be disclosed, namely, the residential address of BJ. CATCHWORDS : Limitation orders – application for confidentiality order – where it may be necessary to withhold information to avoid harm or injustice to a person Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s 109 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): -- 1 of 3 -- BM son/attorney BB son/attorney NA daughter WL } RS } grandchildren BD daughter-in-law Allyson Lindsay Office of the Adult Guardian REASONS FOR DECISION [1] BGMJ is an 89 year old widow who resides in an aged care facility in Brisbane. [2] On 15 December 2000, she executed an enduring power of attorney appointing her two sons as attorneys for financial matters. [3] The Adult Guardian investigated complaints made against the attorneys, and subsequently the Adult Guardian applied to the Tribunal seeking the appointment of The Public Trustee of Queensland as BGMJ’s administrator. Included in the supporting material to the application was the Adult Guardian’s Investigation Report. [4] BM, one of his mother’s attorneys brought applications for limitation orders, namely a confidentiality order, closure order, and a non- publication order. [5] Prior to the hearing the Tribunal ordered certain information to be kept confidential, namely the residential address of BM. The order contained a provision that it was to remain in place until the start of the hearing relating to the Adult Guardian’s application. [6] The orders and the reasons therefor in relation to the application for an administration appointment have been delivered separately, and the order and reasons outlined in this document relate solely to the applications for limitation orders. [7] At the commencement of the hearing, BM outlined the reasons for his applications. [8] In essence, BM asked for his residential address and the content of the Adult Guardian’s Investigation Report to be kept confidential. He alleges he has been the victim of an assault by a family member who has also made a death threat against him. BM says the release of the Investigation Report will increase tensions between certain family members, and their knowledge of his current address will assist those who might wish to harass or harm him. [9] In addition to the confidentiality order, for similar reasons, BM also sought orders closing the hearing to members of the public and to certain -- 2 of 3 -- family members, and orders prohibiting the publication of information about a tribunal proceeding. [10] However, when relevant issues were discussed with the parties at the hearing, BM stated that he had not been aware that the Adult Guardian’s Investigation Report had been released to relevant family members prior to the hearing. BM was also not aware of the effect of s 114A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (the Act) which generally prohibits the publication of information about a guardianship proceeding if the publication is likely to lead to the identification of the relevant adult. [11] In light of this information, BM sought to withdraw his applications for a closure order and a non-publication order. However, he asked for a continuation of the confidentiality order in relation to his residential address made by the Tribunal on 6 August 2013. [12] Section 109 of the Act empowers the Tribunal, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to avoid serious harm or injustice to a person, to the extent necessary, order that a document or other information is withheld from an active party or other person. [13] BM is in conflict with some members of his family, and he has an apprehension that disclosure of his address may place him in danger of serious harm. It is noteworthy that those who challenged his apprehension did not deny the occurrence of threats, but rather sought to explain it by stating that the subject person has a diagnosis of schizophrenia. [14] No party at the hearing opposed the granting of a confidentiality order to the extent requested, and in any event, BM’s address is not germane to the applications before the Tribunal. [15] The conflict between the two family groups appears to be bitter and entrenched, and the mental health difficulties of the person making threats is acknowledged by both family groups. [16] On balance, BM’s perception of apprehension of serious harm is not unreasonable, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the making of the confidentiality order, as to details of his residential address, is appropriate in the circumstances. [17] Orders were made accordingly. -- 3 of 3 --