BGL [2026] QCAT 119 (17 March 2026)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(3)(a)

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

[1] This proceeding relates to a man referred to here as BGL. His identity cannot be disclosed because of a privacy provision in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) ('Guardianship and Administration Act') namely section 114A. The tribunal will be reviewing the appointment of a guardian for BGL, and the applicant has applied for a confidentiality order. These reasons relate to the application for a confidentiality order.

[2] BGL has an intellectual impairment and a mental illness. He is subject to a treatment authority under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld). He has a mental health case manager who is an employee of the state agency Queensland Health.

[3] Since late November 2024 BGL's mother has been his tribunal-appointed guardian for the following matters: accommodation, health care, and the provision of services including in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme ('NDIS').

[4] The mental health case manager has applied to the tribunal for a review of the appointment of the guardian. The applicant proposes that the mother be removed as guardian, and that the Public Guardian be appointed instead. The applicant says the adult has twice lost supported independent living accommodation when providers have ceased services due to disruption by the guardian. According to the applicant, the guardian has, for example:

(a) sometimes stayed overnight at BGL's home, contrary to his lease obligations;

(b) been intoxicated and argumentative;

(c) fomented discord within the provider organisations;

(d) bullied and intimidated staff when her needs were not immediately met, such as by threatening to 'report to current affair';[1]

(e) constantly interrupted mental health reviews; and

(f) over-utilised the adult's NDIS funding.

[5] The applicant says that BGL is now homeless and in hospital. Meanwhile, the guardian has spoken of being unable to 'handle this anymore' and being 'at breaking point'.[2]

[6] In support of her application, the applicant has provided documents including incident reports and a 'guardianship concerns' document written by the manager of the most recent provider. The manager says that interaction between the adult and the guardian tends to exacerbate his anxiety and paranoia, triggering his anger and aggression.

[7] The applicant has also provided emails sent by the guardian to Queensland Health and providers. One of these reproduces a complaint which the guardian says she made to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission about the care provided by the first provider.

[8] The applicant has also provided a report by BGL's psychiatrist about his decision-making capacity, as well as Queensland Health records from 2024.

[9] In her application for a confidentiality order, the applicant seeks an order that her applications and 'correspondence'[3] from the most recent provider, the applicant and Queensland Health be withheld from the guardian. The applicant also seeks an order that these documents be withheld from BGL on the basis that he will likely want to share them with the guardian. The applicant says that disclosure:

(a) would cause harm to the adult's mental health and wellbeing;

(b) would cause 'harm and injustice against parties applying for a review of a guardian';[4]

(c) would cause 'harm toward therapeutic alliances - [BGL] and mental health services';[5]

(d) 'may result in staff harassment, defamation of reputation and impact on continuing engagement with [BGL's] support services';[6] and

(e) would likely result in the guardian having an 'impact on [BGL's] willingness to engage with mental health services if she was aware of the application'.[7]

[10] The applicant says that without a therapeutic alliance, the adult is likely to disengage with mental health services, and this would be detrimental to his mental health.

[11] The application for a confidentiality order is being decided on the papers in accordance with tribunal directions. Meanwhile, a pre-hearing confidentiality order has prevented disclosure of documents to BGL and the guardian.

[12] The applicant, BGL and the guardian are all active parties, as defined in section 119 of the Guardianship and Administration Act. That status affords them a right of access to all relevant information and documents, under section 103 of the Act, unless that right is displaced by a confidentiality order: section 103(5).

[13] In deciding whether to make a confidentiality order, the tribunal must take as a basis of its consideration that each active party is entitled to access a document or other information before the tribunal that is credible, relevant and significant to an issue in the proceeding: section 104(1)(a) of the Guardianship and Administration Act. This mirrors the requirement for procedural fairness in section 103, which is designed to ensure that each active party is given a reasonable opportunity to present their case: section 103(1).

[14] Each active party, and any entity that would be adversely affected by a proposed confidentiality order, has standing to be heard in relation to whether such an order is made: section 111 of the Guardianship and Administration Act.

[15] Procedural fairness is a fundamental requirement in legal proceedings. A party cannot properly prepare and present their case if they are not fully informed of the cases advanced by other parties.

[16] The requirement for procedural fairness is also reflected in section 28(3)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) and section 31(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

[17] Notwithstanding the importance of procedural fairness, the tribunal can make a confidentiality order but only if such an order is necessary to avoid serious harm or injustice to a person: section 109(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act.

Should a confidentiality order be made in this case?

[18] Unless the documents in question are available to the guardian, she has no opportunity to properly respond to them.

[19] The applicant contends that disclosure would harm BGL's health and wellbeing; would damage the therapeutic alliance between the treating team and BGL; and would tend to cause him to disengage from mental health services. It is not obvious, though, that these consequences would flow, or, if they did, that any harm would be significant or enduring. BGL might become upset and destabilised by the criticism of his mother and the effort to have her removed as guardian. Alternatively, in light of the turbulent picture painted by the applicant, BGL might well welcome the applicant's intervention. Further, there is a limit to the extent that BGL can disengage from mental health services. He is compelled by the treatment authority to accept treatment.

[20] It is also not apparent how disclosure could impact on BGL's engagement with NDIS providers. The accommodation providers have already terminated services.

[21] There is more evidence to support the argument that there is a risk of verbal retaliation by the guardian against the applicant and the provider who has provided written evidence.

[22] I acknowledge that it cannot be an easy or a pleasant task for a health professional, or a service provider, to bring an application in the tribunal in which the applicant feels it necessary, in the interests of the adult, to criticise the conduct of a family member. Such applications expose the applicant and witnesses to the potential for criticism which in some cases may be strident, unfounded and unfair. That potential, of course, is not in itself sufficient to justify a confidentiality order. Parliament has, understandably, set a high bar in the context of proceedings in which procedural fairness is expected.

[23] It is common in legal proceedings for there to be a vigorous contest of facts, and for the court or tribunal to have to make findings about credibility and about which evidence is ultimately preferred. This process is predicated on the free exchange of information.

[24] A confidentiality order can be made only if it is necessary to avoid serious harm or injustice to a person. I am not persuaded that serious harm or injustice would occur in this case in the absence of a confidentiality order.

[25] If the documents describing the guardian's conduct are disclosed to the guardian, she might disagree strongly with some of the contents. In communicating with agencies and others, she might criticise the motivations and the reliability of the applicant and the provider. However, I am not persuaded that this would cause serious harm to them. If the guardian is as erratic and unstable as the applicant has suggested, it is unlikely that such criticisms would be taken seriously.

[26] Further, even if there is a serious threat to reputations, the answer is not necessarily to stifle procedural fairness. Defamation laws provide an appropriate avenue of redress for reputational damage.

[27] In relation to the psychiatrist's report and the 2024 health records, I note that the psychiatrist's report does not mention the guardian or her conduct. Some of the 2024 records mention the guardian, but not in an adverse way. She is cited, as BGL's mother, as a source of background information. The records predate her appointment as guardian, and so they do not comment on her performance in that role. I do not accept that disclosure of these documents could cause harm or injustice to any person, let alone serious harm or injustice.

[28] As it has not been established that a confidentiality order is needed to avoid serious harm or injustice to a person, the application for a confidentiality order is refused.