1. UWU currently resides in Greece with his family, and GDS is living with them. UWU's wife XQW is GDS's primary carer looking after GDS in the family home alongside a live-in overnight carer. The family in Greece has established a separate living area in their home for GDS, which is modern and well equipped having its own shower and a bed for her overnight carer to sleep in, which enables GDS to receive the 24-hour a day care and attention, and yet independence, that a person of elderly years with her current state of health and care needs.
2. ODU currently resides in Victoria with his family.
3. Members of GDS's family travel to Greece when they can to visit her.
4. GDS is an Australian citizen with an Australian passport. While now residing in Greece where she was born, she had moved and taken up domicile in Australia when she was younger, where she married and raised her family in Victoria. Given that she has only relatively recently been living in Greece since shortly before the Covid 19 pandemic, although it is unnecessary for me to decide, she likely retains her domicile in Victoria based on the evidence before the Tribunal. In any event, I am satisfied that she retains an 'ample connection with Victoria': see the discussion in German v State Trustees Ltd [2023] VSC 7 at 44 (Justice Richards). GDS had lived here for most of her life. She married and raised her children here and until recently owned a home here. While she has some family in Greece, her other son and his family are in Victoria and she will shortly have additional financial assets here in the form of new Australian bank accounts into which her money is to be invested by the family, and into which her Australian pension is to be paid as soon as the relevant bureaucratic processes are complete.
5. As a consequence of the removal of State Trustees Victoria as GDS's administrator, her son UWU in Greece has applied to the Tribunal for an order appointing him as GDS's administrator because she still has financial affairs in Australia that must be addressed. There is no dispute about this by her other son, ODU, who joins in the application to the Tribunal for the appointment of a successor administrator for their mother's financial affairs, wishing also to have a clearer understanding of where her money is being spent and to see oversight of that expenditure.
6. During the hearing I explained to the family, that an appointment of a family member as an administrator subjects the appointed administrator to the duties and responsibilities placed on an administrator by the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic). In my orders I have spelt out some of them and also provided a link where they can obtain further information.
7. Both brothers, and GDS's primary carer, also want GDS's money from the sale of her home and from her pension to be spent on GDS's current needs, giving effect so far as possible to her will and preferences, and for her money to be invested prudently and securely, in Australian bank accounts and financial products, earning interest.
8. The sole issue before me is whether the appointment of a successor administrator to State Trustees Limited is necessary and who that administrator should be.

1. I am satisfied that it is impracticable or unreasonable for GDS to attend the hearing despite any arrangement that VCAT might make.

1. I make these orders because I am satisfied that:
   1. Due to a disability, GDS does not have capacity to make decisions about the financial matters listed in these orders;
   2. GDS needs an administrator, considering the factors set out in section 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic), including her will and preferences; and
   3. These orders will promote GDS's personal and social wellbeing.
2. I am satisfied that UWU, who I have appointed to be GDS's new administrator, has the appropriate level of independence and understanding to manage her financial affairs subject to the duties and responsibilities that are imposed on him as administrator by the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic). He is also the preferable administrator because he has the day-to-day responsibility of caring for GDS and already manages her affairs in Greece.
3. I am also satisfied that it is desirable, as he himself seeks, that the Tribunal provide advice to him in light of the nature of the family arrangements that are currently in place for GDS's care and wellbeing. Until that advice can be given I have made interim orders authorising certain expenditures based on what was previously approved by the Tribunal under the administration of State Trustees Limited. Those arrangements will be reviewed at a hearing to be conducted in early 2026 for the approval of the Financial Statement and Plan that UWU as the newly appointed administrator for their mother must prepare and provide to the Tribunal for its approval.
4. Because they are brothers who both care for their mother, taking into account what I form the impression would have been their mother's wishes in the manner in which they say they shared things as a family, I have made orders that enable ODU to have visibility and to participate, as far as possible, in UWU's administration of their mother's financial affairs, recognising that the powers and duties of an administrator lie solely with UWU to perform as administrator in accordance with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic).

1. Under s 157 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic), the order of VCAT at first instance of Senior Member Powles dated 12 June 2025 removing State Trustees Victoria as the previously appointed administrator is affirmed.

1. UWU, currently of [redacted], is appointed administrator for GDS.
2. The administrator has power to make decisions about all financial matters.
3. The administrator has powers given under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 sections 46(1) and 52, subject to the restrictions set out in s 23(2).
4. Administrators must comply with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, which outlines their powers and duties.

Please see the Office of the Public Advocate website for further information.

1. The administrator must complete and send to VCAT for approval a Financial Statement and Plan no later than 12 January 2026.
2. The administrator must also send to ODU the Financial Statement and Plan.

Section 64 hearing

1. I direct the principal registrar to list a hearing under section 64 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, to provide advice to the administrator in connection with the approval of the Financial Statement and Plan and other matters covered by this order in para 12 and 15 below, and to serve the administrator and ODU with the notice of hearing when listed.
2. I direct the principal registrar to list the section 64 hearing by Zoom before Deputy President R Wilson, if available.
   1. Unless the administrator informs the Tribunal that he will be in Melbourne, the hearing will be listed to commence after 3:30pm, allow 1½ hours.
   2. Upon receipt of the notice of hearing the administrator must promptly inform the Tribunal whether a Greek translator is required.
3. If ODU wishes to submit any further evidence in addition to that submitted for the hearing at which these orders were made, he must file that evidence with the Tribunal and serve it on his brother UWU within seven days of receipt of the notice of hearing.

1. Pursuant to section 64 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, the Tribunal approves that UWU may spend GDS's funds, on the following:
   1. Up to $100 by way of regular gifts, to each of GDS's grandchildren for the purposes of making a gift in her name to each of them for birthdays and Christmas.
   2. A monthly expense of $8600 to be spent on accommodation and carers for GDS, medication, personal expenses, food and groceries, and phone and internet and including payment of 'rental' for GDS's current accommodation in the administrator's home and carer payments for XQW as primary carer and any additional live-in carer engaged by the family to care for GDS.
   3. An additional one-off expense of $1000 to purchase a tablet or laptop, or other suitable electronic device to be installed in GDS's accommodation suite, that can enable GDS to easily make and receive videocalls overseas and, if the current telecommunications services to the home permit, for an accessible 'big-button' telephone.
2. This authorisation will be reviewed at the section 64 hearing for the approval of the Financial Statement and Plan.

1. The administrator must prepare an Annual Account by Administrator ('ABA').
   1. They must submit the first ABA:
      1. for the accounting period 13 November 2025 to 30 June 2026;
      2. as soon as possible after 30 June and no later than 30 September 2026; and
   2. The administrator must submit all later ABAs:
      1. for each financial year, from 1 July to the following 30 June; and
      2. as soon as possible after 30 June, and no later than 30 September in each year.
2. The annual accounts are to be examined by an independent accountant in Victoria with experience of the requirements of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 and the Tribunal for that purpose, who may charge GDS's estate an approved examination fee.
3. The appointment of an independent accountant shall also be considered at the section 64 hearing.

1. Anyone can apply for VCAT to reassess this order at any time.
2. VCAT is due to reassess this administration order by 30 November 2028.
3. VCAT will automatically schedule a hearing and notify the parties and interested persons when the reassessment hearing can be scheduled. Unless VCAT makes a new order that cancels (revokes) this order, this order does not expire, even if a reassessment does not take place until after the above date.
4. These orders continue until VCAT make other orders.

1. If UWU or GDS changes contact details (email, phone or address), UWU must immediately inform VCAT and ODU in writing.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is providing these additional written reasons on a confidential basis. Clause 37(1) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 provides that unless VCAT orders otherwise, a person must not publish or broadcast any report of a proceeding under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 that identifies or could lead to the identification of a party to the proceeding.

The parties to this order may publish to those persons who need to see it the above BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS and ORDERS, but not these additional written REASONS, without the approval of the Tribunal.

As this ruling raises questions of potential broader application, the Tribunal will in publish this ruling in anonymised manner on Austlii.**

1. In the published written reasons of the Tribunal regarding these two applications, the following pseudonyms are used:
   1. The represented person is referred to as GDS;
   2. Her son in Greece, her administrator, is referred to as UWU;
   3. His partner in Greece and the represented person's primary carer, is referred to as XQW;
   4. The represented person's other son in Victoria is referred as ODU;
   5. His partner in Victoria referred to as BGT.
2. GDS is a 95 year old Greek speaking woman living with advanced dementia. She lives with one of her sons, UWU, in his home in Greece, alongside UWU's wife, XQW, and two of their three children. XQW is GDS's primary carer in their home in Athens.
3. Immediately prior to moving to Greece in 2019, GDS lived with her other son, ODU, and his wife, BGT, and their three children.
4. On the medical evidence before the Tribunal, GDS had lived with dementia for a few years at that point.
5. In 2018, VCAT assessed that she had lost legal capacity and appointed State Trustees Limited as administrator under the former Act to manage her financial affairs, and for the Public Advocate to be appointed as her guardian to make decisions concerning GDS's accommodation, 'access' to GDS, and GDS's access to services.
6. That 2018 appointment of a non-family member was made, it appears, because of the difficulties in the relationship between her sons. Although it is often preferential for a family member to take on these roles, such appointments of non-family members are not unusual.
7. The exact circumstances for why GDS moved to Greece are disputed between the brothers. While it appears to be an ongoing source of tension and anxiety between them, it is unnecessary to recount it in full detail here.
8. It is only necessary to say that GDS has not returned to Australia since departing and is now living in her country of birth and that she appears from the evidence before the Tribunal to be well looked after and cared for in the current family home of her son UWU and his wife as her current primary carer in Athens, where they have set GDS up in her own accommodation suite with its own bathroom and adjacent space for an overnight carer to sleep.

1. In November 2019, as GDS was now living with family overseas, the Tribunal revoked the guardianship order, leaving the administration order in place with State Trustees Limited continuing as the appointed administrator to be legally responsible for her financial affairs.
2. Under its appointment, State Trustees Limited regularly remitted a set amount of GDS's money to UWU and XQW for GDS's care and wellbeing in Greece, including for GDS's payment of rent to UWU and XQW for living in their home, and a carer's contribution to be received by XQW from the lump sum it authorised.
3. The administration by State Trustees Limited up until its recent revocation of appointment was not without concern to GDS's other son, ODU. However, that is not the subject of this order or reasons.
4. On 24 July 2020, the Tribunal approved in principle the sale of GDS's home in Victoria in which she had lived with her husband raised her children in Victoria. At that point, the intention was that a property would be purchased in Athens for the benefit of GDS.
5. The Covid 19 pandemic gripped the world from early 2020 and finally abated in Victoria in late 2022. During this period, different public health restrictions were imposed in different jurisdictions around the world. No doubt they caused difficulties for State Trustees Limited and GDS and her family, in relation to their implications for international travel and care for GDS.
6. In August 2021 State Trustees Limited informed the Tribunal that they had sold GDS's house in Victoria.

1. Under Part 7, Div 2 of the Act the Tribunal regularly reassesses guardianship and administration orders at various intervals: see s 159.
2. In early 2025 the Tribunal listed a hearing to reassess whether the continuing administration order for GDS appointing State Trustees Limited was still necessary. At the reassessment hearing, conducted under ss 164 - 167 of the Act, State Trustees Limited did not seek to continue in its appointment and therefore made no objection to revocation of the administration order.

1. Accordingly, on 12 June 2025, the Tribunal revoked the administration order and State Trustees Limited's appointment as administrator under it, for reasons given at that hearing. In a rehearing application under s 157 of the Act (which is one of the applications before me) it is not the function of the Tribunal to consider those reasons but rather to 'rehear' that matter with 'all the functions and powers that VCAT had with respect to the matter at first instance'.[1] I simply record that in the brief written description of the background reasons for that order, the 12 June 2025 order had recorded that at that time: 'VCAT makes this order because it is satisfied that GDS is no longer a resident of Australia and does not have property that is wholly or partly in Victoria'.

1. Following that revocation order, both ODU and UWU made further applications to the Tribunal under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 that were at slightly at cross-purposes, but had in common the need for GDS and her family to continue to have an administration order in place to manage GDS's financial affairs, including the not insignificant monetary assets realised by State Trustees Limited from the sale of the family home in Victoria and her Australian pension, which State Trustees Limited had conceded in its final report to the Tribunal that it had neglected to apply for.
2. The cross-purposes in their applications was not their fault at all. Their difficulty was navigating what to do where their mother continued to need an administrator to be appointed. Therefore:
   1. ODU made an application under s 157 of the Act for the previous order made on 12 June 2025 revoking the appointment of State Trustees Victoria as administrator to be reheard (redecided) on the basis that another administrator should have been appointed, namely, a named lawyer in Greece.
   2. UWU made a fresh application under s 23 of the Act for himself, in Greece, to be appointed as administrator.
3. Both sons agreed that State Trustees Limited was no longer suitable to be the administrator for GDS.

1. The two applications were listed before me last month.
2. The hearing took place over three short, late afternoon Zoom hearings to take account of the time zone differences between Melbourne and Athens. The family in Victoria needed to attend at the end of the work and school day and the family in Athens attended in the early hours in Greece. While it meant the hearings could only each be quite short, it enabled the family to collect their thoughts and produce further evidence to the Tribunal, where they needed to produce additional evidence, to ensure that the appropriate administration arrangements were put in place for their mother.
3. ODU his partner BGT and UWU and his partner XQW, all attended the three separate hearings and I received sworn evidence from each of them.
4. I thank them all for their helpful assistance to me, both in the evidence they all gave and the way they came up with positive ideas and listened to each other's viewpoints during the hearings about what was needed for their mother, GDS.
5. At the final hearing, ODU withdrew his application for a rehearing and for the appointment of a Greek lawyer as administrator, and instead sought to be granted a "limited power of attorney" in Australia and for VCAT to be appointed as executor of GDS's Will (or for VCAT to appoint a suitable executor), and for GDS's Will to be produced to VCAT.
6. I explained to ODU that a power of attorney is not available where a person does not have the legal capacity to make one and where an administrator has been appointed.
7. However, I explained that the Tribunal would shape the administration orders to accommodate the desirability that he have visibility into their mother's financial affairs and so that he could help is brother administer her affairs in Victoria where that help might be needed.
8. I was told that GDS has made three Wills since 2010. The most recent Will is apparently one made in Greece and in the possession of the notary who witnessed its making. I explained to ODU that it is unclear if I could compel the production of a Will made overseas that is in the possession of a Greek person or entity. In any case, I do not presently think there is anything for the purposes of the application before me to justify the disclosure of the most recent Greek Will.
9. ODU did not pursue his application further.

1. The medical report filed from GDS's general practitioner in Greece (dated 1 March 2024) confirmed the deterioration of her Dementia in Alzheimer's Disease and her full dependence on family, requiring 24-hour supervision and care.
2. Despite obvious conflicts between the brothers and their respective families, two things were clear to me in the hearing held over the three Melbourne late-afternoons.
3. Foremost, it was palpable that everyone in the family held a deep love for GDS and cared for her wellbeing and wanted, in their different ways, to ensure her will and preferences were respected and enabled.
4. Second, despite the brothers saying that they could not work together in administering their mother's financial affairs, a large portion of that was not evident to me.
5. I observed that despite their sibling differences, they and their partners were able to respectfully listen to each other and be responsive to each of their concerns for their much-loved mother, GDS, and about her current and future needs, avoiding getting stuck over other issues from the past.
6. As I said to the family in the hearing before me, I commend them for being able to do that for their mother and the broader family, including the grandchildren.

SHOULD THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER OF 12 JUNE 2025 BE VARIED, AFFIRMED OR SET ASIDE?

1. As mentioned, ODU did not pursue his application for rehearing under s 157 of the Act.
2. Therefore, the Tribunal's Order of 12 June 2025 is affirmed under s 157(2)(a).
3. I formally dismiss the application for rehearing.[2]

1. I now turn to the subsequent fresh application for an appointment of an administrator, brought by UWU under s 23 of the Act.
2. I have set out in the BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS why I have made the appointment and the matters I must and have taken into account under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019.
3. They include the general principles in s 8 and the elements in Part 3, Division 2 - Making guardianship orders and administration orders and eligibility of persons appointed.
4. The general principles set out in s 8 focus attention to the will and preference of the represented person and provide that:

(1) A person with a disability who requires support to make decisions should be provided with practicable and appropriate support to enable the person, as far as practicable in the circumstances:

(i) to make and participate in decisions affecting the person;

(ii) to express the person's will and preferences; and

(iii) to develop the person's decision-making capacity;

(2) the will and preferences of a person with a disability should direct, as far as practicable, decisions made for that person; and

(3) powers, functions and duties should be exercised, carried out and performed in a way which is the least restrictive of the ability of a person with a disability to decide and act as is possible in the circumstances.

1. Section 30 empowers the Tribunal to appoint an administrator.
2. In doing so, the Tribunal must have regard to the general principles.[3]
3. Under s 30(2) the Tribunal must satisfy itself that GDS:
   1. because of her disability, does not have decision-making capacity in relation to the financial matters in relation to which the administration order is sought;
   2. is in need of an administrator (taking into account factors in s 31);
   3. the administration order will promote GDS's personal and social wellbeing;
   4. as GDS lives overseas, that State Trustees Limited has not been authorised under s 12 the State Trustees (State Owned Company) Act 1994 (Vic) to collect, manage, sell or otherwise dispose of her property in Victoria.[4]
4. As I have said, GDS has advanced dementia. I am satisfied that she remains unable to make decisions about her financial affairs.
5. The Tribunal has otherwise been satisfied of the other relevant factors in the past in appointing State Trustees Limited as her administrator.
6. The only thing that has changed since the removal of State Trustees Limited, is that while at that time GDS appeared to not have financial affairs in Victoria after the sale of her home in Victoria, it is now obvious to the Tribunal in the evidence now presented to it that she does: she is eligible for the Australian pension and will have additional financial assets affairs in Victoria in the future, both when her pension is paid and when her moneys are invested in Australian bank accounts and financial products, earning interest.[5]
7. According to UWU, she also still has at least one bank account in Victoria with a little of her money in it.
8. As I have noted in the background introduction to these reasons the Supreme Court of Victoria decision of German v State Trustees Ltd [2023] VSC 7. In that recent case Justice Richards pointed to the fact that the Victorian legislation should be construed beneficially and to the full extent of the legislative power of the State of Victoria,[6] observing at [42]-[43]:[7]

42 The Parliament of a State - including Victoria - has power to pass legislation with extraterritorial effect. So long as there is a real connection - even a remote or general connection - with Victoria, Victorian legislation can extend beyond the State's borders and can affect residents of other States.[31] Where a Victorian statute does not make express provision about its connection with Victoria:[32]

... the task is to identify the central focus or central conception of the legislation, and require that to bear a connection with [Victoria]. One does so as a matter of construction, based on subject matter and scope, and with a regard to internal indications and to avoiding improbable and absurd outcomes. It will be relevant to have regard to the purpose of the statute, the likelihood that the statutory purpose will be evaded if made to depend upon something readily altered at the instance of the parties, and the need to avoid an unduly restrictive approach whereby more than one factum is required to bear a connection.

43 I did not have the benefit of submissions from any party on the question of whether the 1986 Act and the 2019 Act, properly construed, have extraterritorial reach. My preliminary view is that they do. I note the following:

(a) The central conception of the legislation is to enable the making of guardianship orders and administration orders for persons who are unable by reason of disability to make reasonable judgments about matters relating to their person, circumstances and estate. The purpose of both statutes is protective, a purpose that is best achieved by giving the legislation the fullest operation possible. In each case, the Tribunal's powers to make guardianship and administration orders must be exercised for the wellbeing of the person concerned.

(b) An application for an order may be made in respect of 'a person with a disability', with no residency criterion specified.[33] Section 43(2) of the 1986 Act contemplates that an application for an administration order may be made in relation to a person who does not reside in Victoria, in respect of so much of that person's estate as is in Victoria. Similar provision is made in s 23(2) of the 2019 Act.

(c) Part 6A of the 1986 Act dealt with interstate orders, and provided a scheme for the registration by the Tribunal of interstate orders made under a corresponding law of another State. Part 8 of the 2019 Act contains like provisions. Once registered, an interstate order can be reassessed and varied by the Tribunal in accordance with the Victorian statute. An order made under the 1986 Act, and now the 2019 Act, is not revoked in Victoria if the order is registered in a participating State.[34]

1. Likewise, while I too did not have the benefit of submissions from any party on these questions, I respectfully adopt that preliminary view expressed by Justice Richard that the Guardian and Administration Act 2019, properly construed, does have extraterritorial reach for the reasons she explains. To use Justice Richard's expression, in this case involving GDS, there is 'ample connection with Victoria' as I have identified earlier. She also has assets to administer in Australia and in Victoria, where until moving overseas, she was resident, married, owned property, raised and continues to have immediate family, and is quite possibly, if not likely, still domiciled.

1. Section 32(3) sets out that when determining whether someone is a 'suitable person', the Tribunal must relevantly consider:
   1. The will and preferences of GDS (so far as they can be ascertained);
   2. The desirability of preserving existing relationships that are important to GDS;
   3. The desirability of proposing a relative over proposing someone who is not a relative;
   4. Whether the proposed administrator will be available to GDS and able to meet and communicate with her.
2. In these circumstances, I have had regard to GDS's 'will and preferences' based on her historical expressions of her wishes to include family in her personal financial affairs, while also taking into account the more limited extent that - as a 95 year old with progressing dementia - she can currently express them for herself.
3. I have mentioned the 2024 medical report from her general practitioner in Greece. It demonstrates that GDS's dementia has substantially advanced. It was also apparent from her sons, and GDS's inability to be involved in the recent hearings, that she has lost the ability to fully express her will and preferences. Her doctor, in that 2024 medical report, did however say - having seen her at home - that GDS 'stated she was very happy with her family looking after her' and that she 'appeared to be enjoying the company of her family'. Her doctor expressed the medical opinion that: 'Her mental state is such that it is very important she continues to live with her family she is familiar with, in her known environment'.
4. Just as a level of stability and continuity in care and living environment is clearly important for GDS, so too is the involvement of her family important for the management of her financial affairs. And as I heard from her sons, her will and preference would have been that her family look after her personal and financial affairs and make the decisions for her that she could no longer make. She is very fortunate to have a loving family who is not merely willing to take on that responsibility but able to do so in her interests.
5. ODU, as I have mentioned, withdrew his earlier request for a Greek lawyer to be appointed. In any event no consent had been obtained from her and her rates of professional charges were unknown. The legal expense of a lawyer acting as administrator in this case is unwarranted. Without that person's express consent she cannot be appointed. Nor can the Tribunal know what experience or expertise she might have had with the legal requirements imposed on an administrator appointed under the Victorian Guardianship and Administration Act 2019.
6. While State Trustees Limited had previously been appointed, it did not appear at the hearing to argue that it should again be reappointed. Everyone from her family who attended the hearing urged the Tribunal that it would be unsuitable to reappoint State Trustees Limited as the administrator.
7. While their consensus on that topic is neither necessary nor determinative, in the circumstances that now prevail with GDS in Greece, factors a, b, c and d (mentioned above) make it overwhelmingly the case that that someone within her family is now more appropriate to be appointed as administrator for her financial affairs, and properly should be.
8. In selecting the administrator to be appointed the Tribunal must consider various other factors in addition to those in s 32(3).
9. Section 32(2) frames the category of 'eligible' persons who the Tribunal may appoint. It states that the Tribunal may appoint an individual[8] who is over the age of 18 years and consents to act as administrator and is someone who the Tribunal 'is satisfied':
   1. will act in accordance with the duties set out in Part 3 Division 7 of the Act;
   2. is not in a position where the 'person's interests' conflict, or may conflict, with GDS's interests;
   3. is a 'suitable person' to act as administrator for GDS;
   4. has sufficient experience to make decisions about any financial matter to be specified in the administration order.
10. As can be seen, some of these elements are couched in language in future tense and some in the present tense. However, all require a prospective assessment by the Tribunal of suitability for the appointed role.

Will the administrator act in accordance with duties set out in Pt 3 Div 7?

1. On UWU's application to be appointed as administrator, there is nothing to suggest that he would not comply with the duties set out in Part 3 Division 7 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019.
2. Not only does UWU appear entirely capable of comprehending and executing the duties set out in the Act, he has displayed the actual capacity to do that, for the following reasons.
3. That UWU made application to the Tribunal so promptly demonstrated that he was keenly aware of the need for GDS, and for the wider family, that he be properly authorised to act as her administrator after the appointment of State Trustees Victoria ended and transferring control of her money.
4. In the evidence that he filed in support of his application, he produced ample evidence of material that the Tribunal needed to see to understand GDS's immediate needs, and anticipated future needs.
5. Additionally, he and XQW complied with every direction given by the Tribunal, and they did so with a clarity, openness and orderliness, demonstrating he is and will be well capable of carrying out the statutory functions and duties in the appointed role as administrator for his mother's financial affairs under the Act.

Is the administrator in a position where the 'individual's interests' conflict?

1. As I have said s 32(2) is couched in terms of whether VCAT 'is satisfied' about both present and future things about a person to be appointed. Will they act in accordance with the duties set out in Div 7? Are they 'in a position where 'the individuals interests conflict or may conflict', with the interests of the proposed represented person? Are they a 'suitable person to act as the administrator in relation to the proposed represented person'? Has the person 'sufficient expertise to make decisions about any financial matter to be specified in the administration order'?
2. Section 32(5)(a) directs the Tribunal not to assume, without any evidence, that 'a proposed represented person's relative' will have interests that 'conflict or may conflict' with those of the represented person if they were to be appointed administrator. Section 32(5)(b) gives a similar direction not to assume that they might be unsuitable 'merely because that relative disagrees with another relative ... about the matter pertaining to the proposed represented person'.
3. In many ways, that statutory directive is a self-evident one. Members of families have an obvious interest in the financial affairs of family members, particularly parents. And family members also disagree. That Parliament spelt it out expressly was no doubt intended to make it clear that what the section is not talking about is whether there is or is not an actual or potential conflict of interest in the performance of the functions of office, but rather whether they personally are in a position that their own individual interests are or are likely to be in conflict with the person they are appointed to represent.
4. As a matter of natural and ordinary legislative construction, when one examines the context of that element (concerned, as it is, with suitability and eligibility for appointment) and the structure of the Act as a whole (which expressly contemplates that 'conflict transactions' might arise under an appointment and permits advice and authorisation from the Tribunal where an actual or perceived conflict of interest arises under the appointment), it is clear that the section is not dealing with the topic of 'conflict transactions' but a wider idea of whether the person is suitable because they have individual interests that conflict or may conflict with the role of being appointed.
5. It does not necessarily mean that in family situations, the individual interests of family members are incompatible with the interests of the represented person. Where an actual or potential 'conflict of interest' does arise, however, it is very much part of the role and function of the appointed administrator, in exercising the powers and functions conferred on them by the Act and acting in compliance with the duties and obligations imposed on them under the Act, to properly manage any 'conflict of interest' in accordance with the Act, for example by obtaining authorisation for a 'conflict transaction'.
6. The essence of the eligibility requirement in s 32(2)(b) is concerned with the Tribunal being satisfied that the person to be appointed by it as administrator has the necessary judgment, distance and independence, and that their interests are not adverse to the role to be performed, so as not to be 'in a position where the person's interests conflict or may conflict' with those of the represented person were they appointed to the role of an administrator.
7. That the person might be a beneficiary under a Will, might or might not be significant in a given case. That they might have an interest in living with the represented person, might or might not be significant in another. That it might be more convenient for them personally to be appointed because to do so would reduce their travel time, in a given case might also be significant, as might the fact in a given case that they have previously acted for the represented person, are an executor of their Will, owe money to them or have taken control of their funds. Each case must be assessed on its own individual circumstances.
8. Having heard and listened to the evidence of UWU and his partner XQW, and observed the manner in which they promptly located and filed all the materials that the Tribunal directed, and having heard their evidence about the living and care arrangements they have put in place in their home in Greece for GDS with her deteriorating health condition, I am satisfied on the evidence that UWU is not in a position where his interests conflict or may conflict with those of his mother.
9. Where 'conflict transaction' within the meaning of the Act does arise, that is for the appointed administrator to manage and seek advice or authorisation as may be necessary from the Tribunal under the Act, to authorise or validate transactions or expenditures.
10. I deal with that briefly now.
11. At the hearing, the Tribunal received evidence that under the earlier administration of State Trustees Limited, GDS has been paying rent to UWU and XQW, and compensation to XQW for the work she does in caring for GDS. Those payments were approved by previous orders of the Tribunal.
12. That then apparently continued after State Trustees Limited's appointment ceased.
13. Were it to continue upon UWU's appointment, that would (without more being done) amount to a potential if not actual 'conflict of interest'. As I have said, under the Act it is called a 'conflict transaction'.[9]
14. But it is important not to conflate the possibility or even existence of a 'conflict transaction' with the suitability or eligibility question about which the Tribunal must be satisfied under s 32(2)(b).
15. Just as a professional administrator can charge a fee for administration if authorised to do so, so too can the Tribunal authorise the payment of compensation for benefits or other services that might be provided by the administrator or a relative for the represented person, that are necessary, fair and reasonable. Expenses on food or electricity or other utilities for the represented person, a payment in the nature of 'rent', a carer's allowance for services performed, and necessary or desirable training to provide the requisite level of care, are all examples.
16. In modern democratic societies it is well recognised that the role performed by dedicated care-givers, including those who are members of the same family, is critical to upholding and promoting the rights and interests of persons with a disability.[10]
17. The oversight and accountability that the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 provides for by s 57(2) and s 58 (in addressing 'conflict transactions' specifically), and by s 64 (in enabling the Tribunal to give both jurisdiction to 'advise' an administrator and 'approve of disapprove any act proposed to be done by the administrator' and 'make any order it considers necessary') is the statutory way the Victorian legislation enables the existence of and potential for actual 'conflict transactions' to be addressed during the period of the administration.
18. There is no reason why this cannot occur at the time of appointment too. And in this case, in putting the new administration arrangements in place for GDS, it was necessary and desirable to do that with the two 'conflict transactions' I have just mentioned, while the Financial Statement and Plan to be prepared by UWU in accordance with the requirements of the Act could occur to be reviewed by the Tribunal in early 2026.
19. That interim authorisation, coupled with the obligation placed by the Act itself on UWU as the appointed administrator to keep and provide proper accounts of the expenditures of the represented person's money (and of course, income, assets and liabilities) is how transparency and accountability is established, the thing of concern to UWU's brother in Victoria, ODU.
20. In this case, the potential for a 'conflict transaction' occurring upon his appointment as administrator does not make UWU a person who is necessarily, or even actually, 'in a position' where his or his family's interests conflict, or may conflict, with GDS's interests.
21. He can seek advice and he can be authorised to do things in his capacity as administrator. It is important that he keep proper accounts and that he makes disclosure of other conflicts of interest that might arise in the future.
22. That is important for GDS. It is important for him and the family.
23. Returning to the facts of this case, as I have said, the potential for a 'conflict transaction' arising upon his appointment causes no concern in this case about UWU's eligibility and suitability for appointment as his mother's administrator of her financial affairs. I return to those facts.
24. First, under State Trustee Limited's appointment as administrator, the payments and amounts had been authorised as proper by the then administrator and by the Tribunal, being effectively, the residual of the $8,600 per month sent to UWU by State Trustees Limited after paying for the rest of GDS's expenses. That had simply continued. In applying to be appointed, that was an underlying reason for the application being made by UWU and was disclosed, which is one of the critical duties of any fiduciary - disclosure of a conflict of interests, actual or potential.
25. Secondly, the continuation of that previous arrangement, without there being a formal administration order in place, put UWU in a position where he felt he had to do something 'legally' to regularise the situation. Within three days of the Tribunal's Order made on 12 June 2025 revoking State Trustee's appointment, on 15 June 2025 he wrote to the Tribunal from Greece relevantly saying:

'I am writing regarding the ongoing management of the financial and personal affairs of my mother, [GDS], who resides with me in Athens, Greece ... Following the revocation of State Trustees Limited as administrator, [GDS]'s funds remain in an Australian bank account in [GDS]'s name and in [State Trustees Limited's] Common Fund. Previously, [State Trustees Limited] facilitated monthly transfers to my Australian bank account, which I then used to fund [GDS]'s care in Greece. With [State Trustee Limited's] role now ended, it is imperative that my legal authority be formally recognised so I can continue to manage her affairs'.[11]

1. That prompt action shows an acute understanding of the difficulty he was in if the administration of his mother's affairs was not regularised. It was important for GDS and for him and her wider family to enable her to be looked after without interruption. It was important given that UWU now controlled his mother's money, both here in Australia and overseas.
2. Thirdly, the point I have mentioned, through the Tribunal's power to give advice to an administrator and to authorise an act, the Tribunal can in a case such as this ensure proper oversight is in place and ensure that payments made which might amount to a conflict transaction, are justified, fair and reasonable. Put another way, the conflict of interest in this case that arises upon UWU's appointment as administrator can be resolved through authorising orders.
3. UWU sought an authorising order pending his preparation and submission for the Tribunal's review of the Financial Statement and Plan for GDS under his new administration.
4. The Tribunal made such an order. I did so under s 64 but the power also exists as a separate power under s 58, which also creates the power to validate a passed conflict transaction prohibited during the period of administration under s 57(1).[12]

Is the administrator a suitable person to act for the represented person?

1. I am satisfied that UWU is a suitable person for appointment and should be appointed.
2. I have dealt with this element earlier. As I also explained to the family, he is now accountable for GDS's financial affairs under the provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019.
3. To the extent that there any future conflict of interest arises, as administrator he can apply to the Tribunal for direction and advice under s 64 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019.

1. To assist the family, I will briefly say one thing more about what is a 'conflict of interest'.
2. While it is a very familiar concept to lawyers, it is a concept that is often not well understood. There are many definitions of 'conflict of interest' and to ask Google or AI the question may not help understand what it actually is in a fiduciary context - which the role of an administrator is, in the eyes of the law.
3. An administrator is a fiduciary because they are managing money that belongs not to them but to someone else. They are like an agent of a principal. Their role, in administering their affairs, is to act for their principal and in their principal's interests. The principal of an administrator is the represented person, GDS. The rules in the general law for fiduciaries are largely mirrored for those appointed as guardians and administrators under the Act.
4. A breach of 'fiduciary duty' arises when a fiduciary's personal interests (or duty to another) could improperly influence their actions or decisions in exercise of their a fiduciary duty to the person they act for.[13] There are two relevant examples of fiduciary duty:[14]
   1. The 'no-conflict duty' is that they must not, except with the informed consent of the person for whom they act, place themselves in a position where there is or may be a conflict between their own personal interests (which need not necessarily be financial) or a duty to a third party;
   2. The 'no-profit duty' is that they may not make a profit out of their fiduciary appointment or relationship, except with the informed consent of their principal.
5. Where the fiduciary's principal cannot give informed consent - as is the case with an administration order in respect of a represented person - that 'informed consent' must be obtained from the Tribunal under the provisions of the Act.

TO WHAT CONDITIONS SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATOR BE SUBJECT?

1. Section 34(2)(e) permits the Tribunal to put conditions on an administration order that relates to the exercise of a power by the administrator under s 34(2)(c) or (d), requiring they be 'specified in the order'.
2. As I have mentioned above, it is desirable that UWU is required to disclose certain documents to ODU. This is:
   1. the Financial Statement and Plan that must be prepared and produced by UWU as administrator, and approved by the Tribunal
   2. the annual Account by Administrator that must be prepared and submitted by UWU as administrator.
3. ODU receiving these documents aligns with the will and preferences of GDS, who on the evidence before the Tribunal, seemed to have her sons share things equally. At this point in time, I will not impose any other conditions.

1. Under the Act, an administrator is authorised to take any action specified in the Act in relation to a represented person's financial affairs as long as they do not breach their duties under the Act in doing so.
2. Section 64 of the Act expressly provides for a procedure to allow an administrator to seek 'advice' from the Tribunal to authorise them to do certain things.
3. Actions covered by such advice from the Tribunal do not 'lie against an administrator on account of an act or thing done or omitted to be done by the administrator under any order or on the advice of VCAT made or given under [section 64] unless, in representing the facts to VCAT, the administrator is guilty of fraud, wilful concealment or misrepresentation'.[15]

1. I have already mentioned the authorising order I have made and the reason for it in relation to rent to UWU (as the new administrator) and his wife XQW, and primary carer's payment to XQW.
2. As I have said State Trustees Limited, when it was administrator, was authorised by the Tribunal to remit to UWU $8,600 per month from GDS's funds. In circumstances where the person appointed as an administrator has previously been permitted to spend a represented person's money in a particular way, it makes sense to maintain those authorisations following the change in administrator, pending approval of the Financial Statement and Plan to be prepared under the Tribunal's orders of appointment.
3. The money, $8,600 is a mixed fund all of which can be spent on GDS even though some of it might be spent to reimburse expenses of things for her benefit, such as food, electricity and internet. It is not expected that there be a separate shop done for GDS or that she have a separate internet or electricity account. That would be impracticable and even more costly for her.
4. In the order itself, I have made clear to what purposes those authorised payments should be put.
5. At the hearing I also informed that parties that when it comes to approving the Financial Statement and Plan in early 2026, it is possible for the $8,600 per month amount to decrease if the Tribunal determines that that amount at that time is not in line with the principles in the Act. It might also increase. But that is a matter for that future hearing.
6. I have also granted authorisations under s 64 for two other discrete matters which are independent of the approval of the Financial Statement and Plan.

1. Section 47 of the Act sets out the power of the administrator to make gifts from the represented person's assets. It allows administrators to make gifts to family members and close friends of the represented person, even if the family member or close friend also has a connection to the administrator (which would ordinarily be a conflict transaction).
2. In the hearing, I determined it was desirable to give an authorisation to UWU to make gifts to GDS's grandchildren for certain occasions. I set the amount of that authorisation to $100 for birthdays and Christmas.
3. Such gifts are modest and appropriate. They will enable GDS and her grandchildren to maintain their respective connections.
4. It is possible for UWU to make gifts outside of that authorisation, but he will not come under the protection of s 64 of the Act and would need to be satisfied they come within s 47 of the Act.
5. He may wish to turn his mind to seeking further authorisations and discussing them with his brother ODU, and ODU should do likewise.
6. In any event, any gift will need to be accounted for and comply with the accounting requirements in section 61 of the Act.

1. ODU sought that equipment be bought for GDS to receive and make video and telephone calls in her suite.
2. UWU agreed that he would. I therefore directed and authorised that purchase in the orders I made at the hearing on 21 November 2025.
3. UWU and XQW informed me that GDS's suite did not have a landline installed so a hard-wired phone likely could not be installed.
4. What was discussed to be installed was a tablet or some other device that could enable GDS to make and receive videocalls from ODU and other relatives or friends.
5. After some back and forth, I determined that an amount of $1,000 was appropriate. That amount should be enough for GDS to have a suitable way of connecting with her family remotely.
6. I gave UWU that authorisation so that he could give effect to that request as soon as possible.
7. UWU is not prevented from going over that budget, and if he does, he must make sure he complies with his duties as an administrator.

1. The next steps are set out in the orders.
2. Again, I extend my appreciation to the family for the assistance it provided to the Tribunal in these applications.

[1] Similar powers exist under the Powers of Attorney Act 2014 (Vic), s 125 in regard to rehearing of application under s 116(1) of that Act: see MLO (Guardianship) [2025] VCAT 247 at [88], [93]-[99] and cases cited.

[2] Rather than set aside or vary the Order of 12 June 2025 and appoint a fresh administrator under ODU's application for re-hearing. State Trustees Limited did not appear. In this case, to adopt such course might cause difficulty given the hiatus that has occurred since it was removed as administrator when the administration order was revoked.

[3] See s 8(1) and (2). So too must an administrator, when exercising a power, carrying out a function or performing a duty under the Act: see s 8(1).

[4] No such reciprocity agreement was provided to the Tribunal by State Trustees Limited at the reassessment hearing or for the hearing of these applications, and nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal suggests State Trustees Limited had been so authorised by any 'proper officer' under s 12(5) of the State Trustees (State Owned Company) Act 1994.

[5] I also observe for completeness that in making his application to be appointed administrator shortly after the 12 June 2025 Order, in the materials UWU filed with the Tribunal, he said some of GDS's funds were still in the State Trustees Limited Common fund and some were in an Australian bank account. What he needed, to be able to manage his mother's financial affairs prudently and with accountability, was the authority to manage her assets through Australian bank accounts and deal with Australian government authorities.

[6] This is also directed by the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), s 6 Construction of Acts.

[31] Union Steamship Company of Australia Pty Ltd v King [1988] HCA 55; (1988) 166 CLR 1, 14; DRJ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2020] NSWCA 242; (2020) 103 NSWLR 692, [20] (Bell P), [128] (Leeming JA); Infosys Technologies Ltd v State of Victoria [2021] VSCA 219; (2021) 64 VR 61, [60]-[65] (Kennedy JA, McDonald AJA).

[32] DRJ, [157] (Leeming JA), applied in Victoria in Infosys, [65]-[66] (Kennedy JA, McDonald AJA).

[8] I note that it appears that where the Tribunal appoints a body corporate or other non-natural person, the Tribunal does not need their consent to appoint them. See s 32 of the Act; and see further s 38 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic).

[9]As is explained by the Guardianship, Administration and Enduring Powers of Attorney Bench Book published by the Judicial College of Victoria:

3.7.2.3 Financial transactions and related matters

The administrator must not enter into a transaction in their capacity as administrator if the transaction is one in which there is, or may be, a conflict between:

• the duty of the administrator to the represented person; and

• the interests of the administrator, or of a relative, business associate or close friend of the administrator. [see s 57(1)]

However, the administrator may enter into a conflict transaction if:

1. the transaction is a gift made under the ... Act; [see s 57(2)(a) and s 47]

2. it is a transaction providing for the maintenance of the represented person's dependant(s) made in accordance with the specified power to pay for the maintenance of the represented person's dependents; [see s 57(2)(b) and s 52(n)]

3. VCAT authorises the administrator, at or before the time of the conflict transaction, to enter into: [see s 58(1)]

• any conflict transaction otherwise prohibited; or

4. VCAT otherwise validates a prohibited conflict transaction [see s 58(2)]. Once validated, the conflict transaction is taken to be valid from the time it was entered into [see s 58(3)].

An administrator must keep accurate records and accounts of all dealings and transactions made by them in relation to the financial matters specified in the administration order [see s59].

[10] For an example of that point, see the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 30 March 2007, 2515 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 May 2008).

[11] He went on to explain that the uncertainty about his Greek power of attorney being recognised in Australia, 'places [GDS]'s care and financial management at risk'.

[12] Namely, a transaction entered into 'in the capacity of an administrator': see s 57(1).

[13] See GE Dal Pont, Law of Agency, 4th ed (Lexis Nexis) at [10.6].

[14] As the Guardianship, Administration and Enduring Powers of Attorney Bench Book published by the Judicial College of Victoria relevantly observes:

• not use the position for profit unless otherwise permitted;

• avoid acting if there is or may be a conflict of interest, unless so authorised under the [Act], by VCAT order or otherwise by law.