1. The Public Trustee (Tas) is appointed as administrator for BDS until 8 April 2026.
2. The administrator is to lodge with the Tribunal a financial summary relating to the estate of BDS within 8 weeks from the date of this order.

Guardianship stream - Review of administration order - Impaired decision-making ability - Need for an administrator - Promotion of personal and social well-being.

Guardianship & Administration Act 1995 (Tas); ss 8, 51, 54, 67, 68.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication. The publication of evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of any documents produced, or the name of any party or witness in the proceedings is prohibited.

1. BDS is a 92 year old woman who resides in her own home in southern Tasmania.
2. On 2 January 2025 the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") received an application from TS (BDS's daughter) seeking the appointment of an administrator and guardian. That application was heard on 16 January 2025 and orders were made appointing TS as administrator until 15 January 2028. Orders were also made for the appointment of a guardian.
3. On 20 March 2025 the Tribunal received an application from TS for a review of the administration order and for the making of interlocutory orders ("the review application"). The interlocutory application was heard by the Tribunal on 21 March 2025 and the Public Trustee (Tas) was appointed as administrator for BDS for a period of 28 days.

1. The review application was heard on 9 April 2025, at which time the Public Trustee was appointed as administrator with plenary powers over BDS's estate until 8 April 2026 and we ordered the administrator to lodge a financial summary relating to the estate of BDS within eight weeks.
2. The hearing was attended by BDS, OG (social worker), TS, KS (BDS's son), Daniel Peacock from the Office of the Public Guardian, Melanie O'Connell and Ben Goldfinch from the Public Trustee and ISE (BDS's granddaughter). With the exception of BDS and OG who attended via teams, all attendees were in person.
3. A request for written reasons was received from Advocacy Tasmania.

1. On 1 September 2024, significant amendments were made to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas) ("the Act"). These changes removed the requirement to consider the "best interests" of the represented person, replacing it with a focus on promoting a person's "personal and social well-being". This marks a shift in the legislation from a "best interests" approach to one that prioritises a "rights, will, and preferences approach".
2. The power of the Tribunal to review administration orders is derived from s 67 of the Act, while s 68 outlines actions the Tribunal may take after undertaking a review which include varying, continuing or revoking an order.
3. Section 51 of the Act outlines the criteria which must be met before the Tribunal can continue an administration order. These criteria require the Tribunal to be satisfied that the person:
   1. has impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions relating to personal and/or financial matters; and
   2. is in need of a guardian and/or administrator; and
   3. the Tribunal is satisfied that the order will promote the person's personal and social well-being.
4. When determining the element of need, the Tribunal must consider: the wishes and preferences of the person; whether need can be met by other means less restrictive of the person's freedom of decision and action; and the wishes and preferences of any close family members, carers and other significant persons.
5. When making its decision, the Tribunal must observe the principles contained in s 8 of the Act.
6. If the Tribunal is satisfied that an order should be made, then the criteria provided in s 54 must be applied to determine the suitability of the person seeking appointment. In accordance with those provisions, the Tribunal may only appoint the Public Trustee if satisfied there is no person eligible for appointment.
7. An adult will be eligible for appointment if they consent to take on the role, and in the Tribunal's opinion, the person:
   1. understands their obligations and duties and will comply with the requirements under the Act; and;
   2. is a suitable person to act as administrator and/or guardian.
8. Section 54(4) outlines the factors the Tribunal must consider when determining suitability, including:
   1. the wishes and preferences of the represented person, as far as they can be ascertained;
   2. the desirability of preserving significant relationships;
   3. the compatibility of the proposed guardian with the represented person and any appointed administrator;
   4. the extent of potential conflicts of interest;
   5. the preference for appointing someone with a personal relationship with the represented person.

1. Notwithstanding an administration order had only been made on 16 January 2025, the applicant sought a review of that order some nine weeks later. The review application detailed that assistance from the Public Trustee was requested on a temporary basis because of a need to remove KS from BDS's home and to restrict his access to her property. This would in turn limit his influence over BDS with respect to alterations required to the home to accommodate BDS's needs and the cost of those alterations, enable support services to attend the home to assist BDS and the payment of those services and to prevent the ongoing verbal and emotional abuse perpetrated by KS to BDS.
2. Notwithstanding the appointment of the administrator on 16 January 2025, BDS had been able to withdraw $30,000.00 from her bank account over six occasions during an eight-day period in March 2025.
3. TS also gave evidence she had difficulty undertaking the required tasks as an administrator due to her fear, stating "my difficulty I found doing my job was because of my own fear". The Public Guardian reported TS had found the matters which she needed to attend to as administrator "too time exhaustive, contentious and complex" and that she had sought the assistance of the Public Trustee.

1. We had the benefit of a Health Practitioner Report (HPR) dated 17 December 2024 from Dr Martin Morrissey, an old age psychiatrist. Dr Morrissey had assessed BDS while she was an inpatient at the Royal Hobart Hospital. The HPR provides that BDS has impaired decision-making ability about some or all of her financial matters because she cannot retain information relevant to the decision for sufficient time to make and consistently communicate the decision, nor can she use or weigh information relevant to the decision.
2. Dr Morrissey stated BDS does not have decision-making ability about day to day financial requirements and more complex financial and legal decisions, attributing her impaired decision-making ability due to cognitive impairment and the coercion and control exhibited by KS.
3. Dr Morrissey further detailed that BDS does not recognise the extent of her cognitive impairment and the implications or her care needs. Dr Morrissey detailed:

BDS would cognitively be able to manage a basic transaction such as paying a simple bill presented to her or buying an item at a shop. She is, however, unable to complete such simple tasks due to concerns about what KS might think. A recent example was a small bill for a door repair that BDS was distressed about because she believed it would make KS angry.

4. For the same reasons Dr Morrisey advised BDS was also unable to perform more complex financial and legal decisions. Dr Morrissey raised concerns about BDS having signed two documents at the request of her son for which she was not aware of the purpose.
5. Dr Morrissey opined that BDS's impaired decision-making ability is caused by dementia and as a result of the coercion and control from KS. He states that the dementia has been evident for at least two years however the coercion from her son has probably occurred over decades.
6. Also available to us was a Myaged Care Report dated 8 January 2025 which confirmed that due to her dementia BDS has difficulty with memory and sometimes forgets recent conversations, plans or events which can cause her anxiety. That report also confirmed BDS would like to have regular visitors through formal aged care supports and that she would benefit from a high priority level 3 Home Care Package.
7. With the exception of KS and BDS, no one present at the hearing disputed BDS's impaired decision-making although TS was of the view that BDS had ability to pay some of her periodic bills and count out the correct cash funds to make payment of some invoices.
8. KS advised us that BDS has a slight cognitive impairment, but he considered she was still making decisions appropriately and was still capable of making an informed decision. KS stated that BDS still has capacity and still has her independence. BDS told us that she did not accept Dr Morrissey's diagnosis of dementia, and she did not need anyone to assist with managing her finances
9. BDS was clear that she did not need anyone to assist her with her financial matters, commenting:

No one's helping me. I don't need it. I can go with the help of KS.... > > No, not at this stage I don't, no. I like to manage my own affairs. What I get at the bank that is mine.

10. We were not provided with any alternate medical evidence to support the contention by BDS and KS that BDS did not have impaired decision-making in respect of financial matters.
11. Based on the medical evidence before us we are satisfied that BDS has impaired decision making in financial matters due to dementia which prevents her from understanding, retaining, using and weighing necessary information for decision- making.

1. To make an order appointing an administrator, we must be satisfied that BDS is currently in need of an administrator as required by s 51(1)(c) of the Act. For the purposes of determining this we must consider, pursuant to s 51(2) of the Act, the wishes and preferences of BDS; whether BDS's needs can be met by other less restrictive means; and the wishes and preferences of BDS's close family members, carers and other significant persons in her life.
2. TS outlined that BDS has her own home and significant savings, so significant that this has impacted upon her entitlement for an aged pension although this had only become evident since the appointment of an administrator and TS confirmed she was communicating with Services Australia with respect to BDS's entitlements. An administrator will also need to engage with Services Australia to determine if funds are owed by BDS to Services Australia by way of overpayment of entitlements, a process TS advised would take some three months. TS advised KS had previously been the Centrelink nominee.
3. Periodic expenses for BDS's home need to be managed and paid as and when they fall due. Payment of a home care package needs to be arranged, and this has not occurred previously as TS stated that BDS would not engage with a home care package for fear of upsetting KS.
4. TS provided evidence that notwithstanding her appointment as administrator, over an eight-day period between 3 and 11 March 2025, $30,000.00 in cash was withdrawn from BDS's account. This evidence was supported by copies of BDS's bank statements for the period 1 March 2024 through to 28 February 2025. Those funds remain unaccounted for. Subsequently a withdrawal limit of $1,000.00 per day was imposed on the account by TS.
5. KS gave evidence that on each occasion funds were withdrawn from BDS's account, he drove his mother to the bank and went into the bank with her while those withdrawals were made. KS gave further evidence that BDS placed those sums into her handbag, but he had no knowledge as to the whereabouts of those funds. When BDS was asked about the funds she declined to provide any information, stating it was her business.
6. When asked what he believed the purpose of the withdrawals was KS gave evidence his mother intended on renovating her kitchen and bathroom, and that he believed she had taken the funds out for this purpose. Upon further enquiry KS advised BDS had not engaged a builder or obtained quotations for the intended works, and no arrangements had been made for this to occur.
7. TS advised it was BDS's custom to withdraw a lump sum of cash, and to pay bills and invoices in cash. Apart from those March 2025 transactions, the only other withdrawal from the account in the twelve-month period for which bank statements were provided, was a withdrawal of $7,000.00 on 13 November 2024. TS understood BDS had sufficient funds for payment of her bills because of the large amount withdrawn in November 2024.TS advised she had received a telephone call from the bank raising concerns about the significant withdrawals being made by BDS.
8. An administrator is also required to attend to payment of medical bills, pharmacy accounts, private health insurance, periodic accounts for water and electricity, and insurance for BDS's home. TS had also engaged with BDS's accountant. BDS has significant savings and investments and these need to be managed.
9. TS advised that while administrator she had not been able to purchase items to assist with BDS's care and have repairs undertaken. For example, a recliner chair which BDS has been advised she requires to assist with the retention of fluid in her legs, and rails which need to be installed to help with BDS's access at her home. TS advised us this was because:

my mother was scared to have things put into the house, we would have needed an electrician to come and repair the power point to plug in an electric recliner. My Mum was terrified of having any changes made because of the impact it would have on KS.

10. TS further stated, "she believes that anything that is done, any changes that are made, any purchases that are made will make KS angry."
11. TS stated she had begun investigations into the transfer of a 1970 Kingswood motor vehicle owned by BDS which she believed had been transferred to KS without consideration. TS advised BDS had expressed concern to her while in hospital she believed she no longer owned a car, that KS had asked her to sign a paper but she did not realise at the time what it was. An administrator is therefore required to investigate the arrangements which were made for the transfer of that vehicle which TS estimates has a value of $50,000. KS gave evidence that that vehicle was transferred to him some years ago and is kept at his home.
12. The Public Trustee provided a report dated 4 April 2025 detailing the matters it had dealt with during its period of appointment as emergency administrator. This included arranging for payment of periodic bills by direct debit such as pharmacy accounts, arranging a commonwealth seniors health card, private health insurance, rates, Tas water and aurora energy. Insurance cover was arranged for the real estate owned by BDS because insurance for the property could not be located.
13. An administrator is also required to attend to essential repairs and maintenance to enable BDS to be able to return to her home on discharge from hospital. Contractors need to be engaged to undertake work to install handrails but at the time of the hearing the contractor had been refused admission to the property by BDS because "KS would be very angry" if the work proceeded.
14. The Public Trustee advised a determination needed to be made by an administrator as to whether or not KS was a tenant at the property. KS gave evidence that he did not live at the property, he had owned his own property for 30 years which was where he lived, and over the past two years stayed at BDS's home on occasions to provide support to BDS to keep her safe. He also confirmed he was not his mother's tenant, and he did not pay her rent. This was also referred to in the Myaged Care Report. The information from KS was consistent with and reiterated his evidence at the emergency hearing on 21 March 2025.
15. The Public Trustee report also details the Public Trustee was unable to ascertain BDS's views as to the appointment of an administrator. The Public Trustee details this was because of BDS's extreme fear of upsetting KS. The Public Trustee chose not to distress her further by discussing the matter with her. The Public Trustee were resolute that an order for administration was required to provide oversight of the management of BDS's financial affairs, her day to day transactions, her financial care needs and the maintenance of her home and improvements required to enable her to remain living independently.
16. The Office of the Public Guardian provided a report in relation to administration which provided as follows:

...there are matters relating to the property of BDS, including the undertaking of the central repairs, management and resolution of associated tenancies, as well as the seeking of legal advice and direction to advise and facilitate those functions appropriately, which are unable to be effectively managed without the presence of an administrator. These matters are identified to be too time-exhaustive, contentious and complex, to be managed by the previous administrator, who sought the assistance of the Public Trustee by way of the previous interlocutory administration order.

17. The evidence presented demonstrates that an administrator is necessary to protect and enhance BDS's personal and social wellbeing and to ensure her financial needs are met. Further an order will ensure BDS is safe from financial exploitation, ensure that home improvements can be undertaken and support services engaged.

1. BDS does not accept that she needs an administrator and expressed the view that she was capable of managing her own financial affairs.

Can BDS's needs be met by any other less restrictive means?

1. No evidence was put before us as to a less restrictive means of meeting BDS's current needs other than by way of an administrator, and whilst we have considered this question, it is apparent that there are matters to be dealt with that can only be dealt with by the appointment of an administrator.

Wishes and preferences of any close family members, carers, other significant persons in BDS's life

1. TS and ISE accepted BDS's need for an administrator. This was not however accepted by KS for the reasons outlined above. In addition, KS denied he had cancelled medical appointments for KS, denied preventing his mother receiving support services, and had not prevented people from entering the home to undertake repairs.

Promotion of BDS's personal and social wellbeing

1. As a result of amendments to the Act the focus has shifted from a "best interests" approach to one that prioritises the promotion of BDS's personal and social wellbeing. That is therefore integral to the decision-making process.
2. The review application details that KS has no respect for the orders for guardianship and administration and that while BDS is aware of the attempts being made to obtain care she is being manipulated by KS to do only as he advises. TS stated in the review application that BDS is afraid of upsetting KS as she is subject to his rages and ongoing verbal diatribe if she steps outside the boundaries, he has set for her. The review application further details that an administration order will promote BDS's personal and social wellbeing by enabling her to obtain appropriate healthcare services and aids that will improve the quality of her life. For example, the installation of handrails at the home and the purchase of a recliner chair.
3. Her personal and social wellbeing will be further promoted by ensuring her financial affairs are appropriately managed, her periodic expenses are paid as and when they fall due and medical expenses are met. In addition, expenditure necessary to ensure her home is safe for her to remain living independently can be incurred and any pressure or stress around financial matters, including the stress created by KS's involvement in her financial affairs will be removed. It will also ensure funds are available to meet the cost of a home care package which will provide her services within the home, and she will be able to receive the benefits of this package without fear of upsetting KS due to the cost associated with the package. An administrator will also ensure BDS is not at risk of financial exploitation.
4. The Public Guardian advised us an administration order was required and that it would promote BDS's personal and social well being to make her home safe for her. This includes resolving fire alarm issues, installation of hand rails, removal of the mould in the home and the required home modifications. Mr Peacock stated these improvements would allow BDS mobility, greater quality of life and freedom of movement.
5. KS and BDS do not believe an administration order is required however all other parties agreed an order would promote BDS's personal and social wellbeing.
6. We were satisfied an administration order will promote BDS's personal and social wellbeing by ensuring that decisions are made in a way which preserves her dignity and addresses her ongoing financial needs. It will ensure BDS's expenses are paid, funds are available to ensure her accommodation is suitable for her independent living, and it will relieve her of any stress caused by attending to those financial obligations and meet her financial needs without fear of recrimination and or retribution from KS.

1. An administrator was appointed on 16 January 2025 and faced obstacles in undertaking her role notwithstanding her concerted efforts. The Public Trustee advised TS had been frustrated in her role as administrator due to BDS's fear of repercussions from KS. TS was also herself fearful of KS. While TS did not oppose the appointment of the Public Trustee, she did have concerns about an appointment for a period of 12 months trusting outstanding matters should be able to be achieved more quickly than that.
2. The Public Trustee advised it was appropriate for the Public Trustee to be appointed to put arrangements in place particularly given the difficulties TS had experienced during the time she was administrator, then a review should occur. Mr Peacock from the Public Guardian also supported the appointment of an administrator and that it should be the Public Trustee and that the least restrictive approach would be to appoint the Public Trustee for a 12-month period at which time a review should occur. It was noted the Public Trustee could apply for an earlier review if matters were resolved and everything required was in place for a family member to be considered for appointment.
3. BDS opposed the making of the order and suggested KS could assist with financial matters, we note however, that KS was not seeking appointment as administrator and had not completed and filed a Part C - suitability for appointment and consent to act as administrator.
4. We are satisfied that the Public Trustee should be appointed as financial administrator based on the evidence presented. This is by no way a criticism of TS in her role as administrator, as she was dealing with very difficult circumstances and family dynamics. The decision ensures that BDS's financial matters will continue to be managed in a transparent and impartial manner with appropriate oversight in place.

1. The evidence from Dr Morrissey indicated that BDS has dementia. Her circumstances were unlikely to change, such that the need for an administrator would be mitigated. However, once further arrangements are in place for the management of BDS's financial affairs, it may be more appropriate that a family member take on the role of administrator. We therefore determined that the duration of the administration order for BDS should be for a period of one year.

1. The Tribunal orders:
   1. The administration order for BDS made on 16 January 2025 has been reviewed and is varied and from this day the order is:
      1. The Public Trustee (Tas) is appointed as administrator for BDS until 8 April 2026.
      2. The administrator is to lodge with the Tribunal a financial summary relating to the estate of BDS within 8 weeks from the date of this order.