AMT v COT & GSZ [2017] SACAT 2

AMT v COT & GSZ [2017] SACAT 2 | Case summary | Zoe

AMT applied on 2 June 2016 to revoke an interim "special powers" order that had been made with respect to COT under s 32 of the G & A Act on 25 May 2016. That order expired on 15 June 2016. On 16 June 2016 a further special powers order was made with respect to COT on the application of the Public Advocate. That order was due to expire on 16 December 2016. AMT had applied on 27 September 2016 for that order to be revoked. In the meantime on 30 August 2016 the Public Advocate had applied for the revocation of the special powers order as it was no longer necessary due to the decline in the health of COT. She was mostly bed bound and there had been no attempt to remove her from the nursing home. COT passed away on 17 October 2016 without the order having been revoked. It is clear from the application made by the Public Advocate on 30 August 2016 that the special powers had not been exercised for some substantial period.
At the conclusion of the internal review hearing about the decisions made by Ms Rugless I heard submissions from AMT concerning the lodgement of the internal review application on 2 June 2016 relating to the special powers order. The issue was that AMT had not paid the filing fee ordinarily due upon the lodgement of an internal review application. At the relevant time that fee was $500. If the application had been made by COT no fee would have been payable because she was the subject of the order. However, that exception did not apply to AMT if he had applied as an interested person.
I reserved my decision on this issue. Unfortunately, I overlooked the need to resolve the question. I have expressed the view above that the Public Trustee had power to revoke the enduring power of attorney made by COT. Thus, because that had occurred prior to the lodgement by AMT of the internal review application on 2 June 2016, he was not exercising her legal rights when he made the application. Accordingly, the application must have been made as an interested person. It could only proceed upon payment of the full filing fee or the production of proof by AMT that he was entitled to a fee waiver on the grounds of financial hardship. As neither occurred, the internal review application was automatically stayed by the operation of regulation 14 (6) of the SACAT Regulations. While I regret not having dealt with this question in a more timely way, it has had no practical consequences for the reasons I have indicated.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (7)

Cases Cited (12)

AMT v COT & GSZ [2017] SACAT 2 (17 February 2017)