HN v NTCAT & Ors [2020] NTSC 48

Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014 (NT) s 52, s 53, s 54, s 56, s 92, s 130, s 141

Booth v An Assessor [2019] NTSC 89; City of Mandurah v Australian Flying Corps & Royal Australian Air Force Association (WA Division) Inc [2016] WASCA 185; (2016) 50 WAR 466; Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27; (2006) 149 FCR 522; Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Another [2018] HCA 34; (2018) 264 CLR 123, King v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2018] WASCA 195; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3; 264 CLR 421; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH 256 CLR 326; Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2010] HCA 24; (2010) 241 CLR 320; Richmond Football Club Ltd v Verraty Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 597, TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 82 ALR 175, referred to

First Respondent: Solicitor for the Northern Territory

Second Respondent: Solicitor for the Northern Territory

HN v NTCAT & Ors [2020] NTSC 48

NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (NTCAT)

• [1] On 26 February 2020 the First Respondent, the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NTCAT or the Tribunal), made orders under s 11 of the Guardianship of Adults Act 2016 (NT) (the Act) appointing the Public Guardian and one of UNN's daughters, CN, as guardians for the personal matters of UNN, and appointing CN the guardian for the financial matters of UNN.
• [2] On 25 March 2020 the applicant (HN) applied for leave to appeal against those orders, under s 141 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014 (NT) (the NTCAT Act). On 14 April 2020 the Office of the Public Guardian was added as the Second Respondent and CN was added as the Third Respondent. At a directions hearing on 11 May 2020 HN was informed of the limited nature of appeals to this Court and of the alternative remedy of applying for a review of the Tribunal's decision under s 140 of the NTCAT Act. Programming orders were made for the filing and service of further affidavit material and written submissions.

• [3] UNN was born in 1935. She married HN in January 1974 and they divorced in 2003. UNN then had a de facto relationship with another person, who died in August 2013. HN had no contact with UNN from 2003 until 15 November 2018 when he learnt that UNN was in hospital. UNN had four daughters, CN, FD, ON and AN.
• [4] On 27 November 2018 the Tribunal made an interim order appointing the Public Guardian as UNN's guardian for her personal matters. Following a hearing on 19 December 2018 the Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian as UNN's guardian for personal and financial matters. The Tribunal concluded that UNN had dementia and that her decision-making capacity was clearly impaired within the meaning of the Act.[1] The Tribunal considered it was clearly desirable for steps to be taken to facilitate UNN's transition to supported accommodation. The Tribunal noted that there were deep divisions between UNN's daughters and a close friend SX, as to which of them was suitable for appointment as UNN's guardian. The Tribunal adjourned the proceeding to 27 March 2019 for further consideration of the guardianship arrangements and in particular the suitability of a person or persons other than the Public Guardian to be appointed as UNN's guardian. The Tribunal directed that relevant materials be provided to all "interested persons", namely CN, FD, ON and SX and made other programming orders.[2]
• [5] At the hearing on 27 March 2019 the Tribunal made orders which continued the appointment of the Public Guardian as UNN's guardian for personal and financial matters. Orders were also made extending the authority of the Public Guardian to enable the Public Guardian to make "decisions regarding where and with whom [UNN should] reside" and "decisions regarding her relationships with other people, including decisions about who may or may not visit her". The Tribunal set 30 September 2019 as the reassessment date for the purposes of s 36 of the Act. On that occasion the Tribunal made orders for interested parties to attend a compulsory conference. That happened but was not successful.
• [6] On 26 November 2019, the applicant (HN) filed an application to vary, revoke or reassess the guardianship orders made on 27 March 2019. The reassessment hearing, including the hearing of the applicant's application of 26 November 2019, took place on 3 February 2020 (the Hearing). The President of the Tribunal, Mr Richard Bruxner, conducted that and the previous hearings.
• [7] The Hearing was attended by UNN, the applicant (HN) and his lawyer Mr Ronald Lawford, three of UNN's daughters, CN, FD and ON,[3] and Ms Karina Morris (on behalf of the Public Guardian). During the hearing UNN was asked a number of questions. Unfortunately, many of her answers were ambiguous and she clearly had difficulty understanding and processing various questions asked of her.

• [8] Appeals to this Court from a decision of the Tribunal are confined to appeals on a question of law and may only be bought with leave of the Court.[4] The nature of such appeals and the principles regarding the granting of leave were discussed in some detail by Grant CJ in Booth v An Assessor.[5]
• [9] As Grant CJ pointed out in Booth an appeal restricted to a question of law invokes the original jurisdiction of the Court rather than its appellate jurisdiction.[6] The phrase "on a question of law" is narrower than an appeal that merely "involves" a question of law.[7] The subject matter of the appeal must be the question of law itself, rather than some mixed question of fact and law or a matter which merely "involves" a question of law.[8] By so confining the nature of the jurisdiction and the duties and powers of the Court, the NTCAT Act creates an "appeal" which is more in the nature of judicial review than an appeal in the conventional sense of a rehearing.[9] The Court's function is to determine whether there has been an error of law and, if so, to describe the nature, content and effect of that error.[10]
• [10] The fact that such an appeal is confined to an appeal on a question of law is an important restriction not only to the Court's jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal, but also on the question of leave.[11] Accordingly, the Court must be satisfied of the existence of such a question before leave is granted. The requirement for leave is a safeguard that an appeal is on a question of law and that the grounds supporting the question articulated for determination do found the subject matter of the appeal.[12]
• [11] Further, as counsel for the second respondent pointed out, leave should be granted only if, in all the circumstances, it is in the interests of justice to do so.[13] There are no rigid or exhaustive guidelines governing that inquiry.[14] However, in an appeal on a question of law, considerations which will generally be decisive are whether there is sufficient doubt about the question of law to justify the grant of leave, the importance of the question of law raised, and whether a substantial injustice would result if the error of law was not corrected.[15] Accordingly, the most relevant considerations for this application are whether the grounds of appeal in so far as they raise questions of law show merit, and whether they are of sufficient import to justify the grant of leave.[16] It is ordinarily incumbent on the applicant for leave to establish that there is sufficient doubt about the question of law to justify the grant of leave, and that a substantial injustice would result if the error or law is not corrected.[17]
• [12] Because appeals from the Tribunal to the Supreme Court are confined to appeals on questions of law it is not for this Court to entertain submissions about the merits of the Tribunal's decision to appoint the guardians of UNN, or about matters which are for their determination, such as UNN's living arrangements. As I pointed out to the applicant, both at the directions hearing on 11 May and at the hearing of the appeal, even if his appeal was successful I would in all likelihood be obliged to remit the matter to the Tribunal for its reconsideration. The Court would only substitute its own decision in circumstances where the correct answer to the question of law was itself determinative of the matter.[18]

• [13] In his written submissions the applicant contends that he was "deprived of natural justice and procedural fairness". He complains that:

(a) He was not informed by the President of his right to ask questions of UNN or any of the other parties involved. Accordingly, he did not ask questions. He said there were many questions he would have liked to ask.[19] I shall refer to this as ground 1.

(b) The Tribunal refused to look at three photographs the applicant took of UNN shortly after she had gone into hospital.[20] One was a photograph he took on 21 November 2018 showing "the emaciated state of [UNN's] body".[21] The other two were photographs of UNN's toenails showing that they had not been cut for a long time.[22] I shall refer to this as ground 2.

(c) The Tribunal was wrong to dismiss evidence about the relationship between UNN and her children having broken down about three years before UNN's admission to hospital in November 2018 because the Tribunal wrongly assumed that SX "had something to do with this."[23] I shall refer to this as ground 3.

(d) The Tribunal was wrong to dismiss a letter dated 22 September 2016 written to UNN by lawyers then acting for ON in response to allegations that ON had misused UNN's monies, and requesting that UNN cease to have any contact with ON and her son.[24] I shall refer to this as ground 4.

• [14] At the hearing of this application, the applicant also complained that he had not been provided with a copy of a number of photographs referred to during the Hearing. Those photographs were taken at UNN's home and showed the conditions in which she was living prior to her admission to hospital.[25] I shall discuss this when considering ground 2.

• [15] The Tribunal was exercising its powers under the Guardianship of Adults Act 2016. In doing so it was required to exercise that authority in accordance with the "guardianship principles" set out in s 4 of the Act. The Tribunal is required to exercise its authority in a way that it "reasonably believes is in the adult's best interests."[26] Section 4 proceeds to identify a wide range of facts and considerations to which the Tribunal must have regard. The first of these, and relevant in the present matter, is that the Tribunal must "seek to obtain the adult's current views and wishes, as far as it is practicable to do so".[27]
• [16] A failure to afford a party procedural fairness may constitute an error of law and give rise to a competent ground of appeal. In addition to the natural justice and procedural fairness obligations that would ordinarily attach to any court or tribunal, the nature and content of the obligations of a particular tribunal will be informed by the statute that defines the tribunal's functions, powers, and obligations.[28] The general functions, powers and obligations of the Tribunal are to be found in the NTCAT Act.
• [17] Subject to any other relevant provisions in the NTCAT Act, the Tribunal may determine its own procedures.[29] Section 53 of the NTCAT Act identifies principles for conducting proceedings. The Tribunal is required to "act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the matter that is the subject of the proceeding."[30] Apart from the express requirement that the Tribunal comply with the rules of natural justice[31], proceedings are to be conducted more informally than would be proceedings in a court. For example the Tribunal may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate and is not bound by the rules of evidence and must act with as little formality and technicality as a proper consideration of the matter permits. The Tribunal is to ensure, so far as is practicable, that all relevant material is disclosed to the Tribunal.[32]
• [18] Section 54 requires the Tribunal to assist the parties to be informed of certain matters. The Tribunal is required to take reasonable steps to ensure that the parties to a proceeding have a reasonable opportunity to understand the nature of the matter under consideration, and that they understand the nature of any assertions made in the proceedings and the legal implications of those assertions. The Tribunal must also "explain to the parties, if requested to do so, any aspect of the procedure of the Tribunal, or any decision or direction made by the Tribunal."[33] Section 55 requires the Tribunal to "take all reasonable steps to ensure" that "the parties have had the opportunity to be heard or otherwise have their submissions received" and that "all relevant material is disclosed to the Tribunal so as to enable it to decide all the relevant facts in issue".
• [19] The Tribunal is given wide discretion as to how evidence and submissions are to be presented and whether and what evidence or argument it will hear orally.[34] The Tribunal may "require a witness to answer a question put by a member [of the Tribunal] or a person appearing before the Tribunal that is determined by the Tribunal to be relevant to the proceeding."[35] A party is entitled to appear personally or by a legal practitioner, or with the leave of the Tribunal and, subject to the rules, by another representative.[36]
• [20] Clearly then, there is no unfettered right for a party to question a witness. Rather the NTCAT Act seems to contemplate that questions of a witness will normally be asked by a member of the Tribunal, and that if another person wishes to question a witness he or she can only do so if the Tribunal considers the question relevant to the proceeding.
• [21] Of relevance to the grounds raised in the present matter, it is clear that there is no express obligation upon the Tribunal to:

(a) allow a person to ask questions of a witness or another person;

(b) accept evidence about a matter that is not in issue or which is not otherwise relevant; or

(c) attach particular weight to particular evidence or to a submission which it considers of little if any relevance to any issues in the proceeding.

• [22] Moreover, subject to affording natural justice and procedural fairness to a party whose interests may be adversely affected, the Tribunal has a wide discretion in relation to the questioning of witnesses and the tendering and use of evidence. The Tribunal would be entitled to refuse to allow a person to question a witness, particularly a vulnerable and confused person such as UNN clearly was, and particularly where the question had already been answered to the best of the witness' ability in response to questions already asked by the Tribunal member.

Ground 1 - not informed of his right to ask questions

• [23] HN contends that the President erred in not informing him of his right to ask questions of UNN or any of the other parties involved. He says that he was "deprived of natural justice and procedural fairness", on the basis that he was not informed of his right to ask questions of UNN, which "severely, and grossly unfairly restricted" his ability to make his case.[37]
• [24] At the hearing of the application I asked HN what questions he would have asked UNN. It was evident to me that he wanted her to say that she wished to live at home with him rather than at the supported accommodation at Regis Tiwi where she had been living since 22 January 2019. During the Hearing UNN had already been asked several times, particularly by the President, where she would like to live, and in particular whether there was some place she would like to live other than where she was currently living, at Regis Tiwi. I have quoted some of the exchanges below. In my opinion HN was not proposing to ask her an open ended question as to where she would like to live. Rather HN wished to cross-examine her in effect by putting certain propositions to her and thereby applying pressure on her to give him the response he wanted, that is that she wanted to go back home and live with him there.
• [25] Perusal of the transcript of the Hearing shows that HN played a very active role during the proceedings and intervened frequently to make various points, notwithstanding that his lawyer Mr Lawford also played an active role. HN made it very plain at the outset of the proceedings that he wanted to be made guardian and wanted UNN to live at home with him.[38]
• [26] The President pointed out to HN that decisions had previously been made that it was in UNN's best interests for her to reside at the supported accommodation so that she could get the sort of care that she was considered to require. HN responded that her only problem was a short-term memory problem, and that she was on "no special medication".[39]
• [27] While Mr Lawford was attempting to outline the main points he wished to make in support of HN's request for guardianship, HN frequently intervened. Mr Lawford's main contentions were that: UNN had been neglected by her daughters for some three years before HN learnt (in November 2018) that UNN was in hospital and that she was then in very poor physical condition; UNN's physical condition had improved significantly since HN had been visiting her daily since then; and that her interests would be better served if HN had guardianship. At various points HN interrupted to accuse SX and ON (neither of whom were applicants for guardianship) of dishonest or disgraceful conduct in their dealings with UNN.
• [28] Mr Lawford concluded his opening outline by saying that considerable weight should be given to what UNN wished.[40] He acknowledged that "[UNN] has a mental disparity to a degree." The President pointed out that UNN's wishes were the subject of a report prepared by Ms Campbell on behalf of the second respondent and that Ms Campbell did not feel that UNN was able to express a wish about a matter of that sort of complexity. HN said he disagreed with that opinion. The President invited HN to say what he considered was the best approach for him to take in order to find out [UNN]'s preferences. HN said: "Just ask her. ... She does know what she wants."[41] The President pointed out that deciding where UNN should live was not the purpose of the hearing. Rather, it was to decide who should be UNN's guardian. Decisions about her future would be made by the guardian.
• [29] The President proceeded to ask UNN a number of questions such as what if anything she understood about the purpose of the present proceedings and about where she was living at Regis Tiwi. Then occurred the following exchange (according to the transcript)[42]:

The Chairperson: You said that you don't mind the place you were living at, is there some place, some other place you'd like to be living as well?

HN: He's asking you where you would like to live, if you choose who you want to live with.

UNN: I will live with my daughters and ... maybe (inaudible)

HN: But you can't live with your daughters. If you had your choice between staying in the nursing home or living with me, where would you want to live?

UNN: I don't (inaudible). I've got three daughters (inaudible).

• [30] After a brief interruption UNN named and referred to her three daughters saying they are "good children". She also referred to "my husband Greg, he's a good man." The President then asked UNN who she would like to make decisions for her, important decisions about her life. She said: "I don't mind my daughters and Greg. ... Greg is my husband, my ex-husband, he's a nice man too. And my daughters, they are nice girls."[43]
• [31] The President then said:[44]

Mr Lawford, was there was anything that you would have asked [UNN] that I haven't, myself, asked her? And if there is, I think I'd prefer to be the one that asks her, but if you could sort of indicate to me what subjects ---

• [32] Mr Lawford responded: "Effectively, no Mr Bruxner. [HN] feels that joint guardianship would probably not be a workable proposition, having all three as joint guardians." The President agreed that that was a difficulty, particularly as it appeared that HN would not consult with the two daughters if they were appointed, and vice versa. The President then said: "And so there wasn't anything more that you wanted me to ask [UNN]?" to which Mr Lawson had said: "No".[45]
• [33] The President then gave CN the opportunity to speak. HN interrupted on several occasions and made lengthy assertions about numerous matters including historic matters and his disagreement with many things said and done by various other people including staff and authorities at Regis Tiwi.[46]
• [34] As counsel for the second respondent pointed out it is clear that HN was given and took the opportunity to ask questions directly of UNN in relation to where she wished to live. Notwithstanding the evidence regarding UNN's dementia and her lack of decision-making capacity[47], the President took all reasonable steps to afford UNN an opportunity to express her views at the Hearing. The President directly asked UNN where she would like to live, and she indicated that she enjoyed living at the nursing home and did not want to live elsewhere. HN also asked UNN where she would like to live, and UNN responded that she would like to live with her daughters. HN then pressed UNN on whether she would prefer to stay at the nursing home or live with him, but UNN was unable to answer that question. Also, the President asked Mr Lawford, twice, whether there was anything else that UNN should be asked, to which Mr Lawford replied in the negative.
• [35] Although I have descended into the minutiae as to what was asked of UNN and what opportunities HN and his lawyer had to further explore UNN's views, that exercise demonstrates that HN was afforded extensive opportunities to try to support his contention that UNN did have a reliable view to the effect that she wished to live at home with him and that her best interests would be met if he was her guardian.
• [36] There was no obligation on the President to inform HN that he had a right to ask questions of UNN or any other party. Indeed, he did not have such a right in the circumstances. This ground could not, even if established, have amounted to an error of law. I refuse leave in relation to this ground. Even if I had granted leave I would have dismissed ground 1.

• [37] At the commencement of the Hearing the President requested HN or Mr Lawford to inform him of the key matters that he would rely on in support of persuading him that HN was suitable for the role of guardian. Mr Lawford sought to "hand up" photographs taken by HN when he first saw her in November 2018 to support his contention that UNN's physical condition had "improved tremendously" since HN again became involved with her.[48] HN also relied on these photographs as evidence that UNN's daughters had neglected UNN and her well-being for several years prior to then and were therefore not suitable for appointment as her guardian.
• [38] The President referred to the difficulties where a party relies upon a document that has not been previously been provided to others.[49] Nothing more was said about the three hospital photographs until later during the hearing when HN asked the President to look at Annexure AN 4, so that he could see how UNN looked when she was first admitted to hospital.[50] The President said he had seen photographs which showed the conditions she was living in prior to her admission to hospital, namely the home photographs.
• [39] The President then asked the daughters whether there was "any argument that when she was admitted to hospital she was in incredibly bad shape". CN replied: "Absolutely not." HN then said he would like the President to see the three hospital photographs because "it really will shock you." The President replied: "Well I'm sure it does ... But it's not an issue because there is no dispute that that was how she was. So I don't need to ...".
• [40] It cannot have been an error of law for the Tribunal not to have regard to the three hospital photographs. Neither they, nor the home photographs, had any relevance to a fact in issue. No one disputed that UNN was in very poor physical condition when she was admitted to hospital, and all relevant parties agreed with the President's apparent conclusion that "she was in incredibly bad shape." It was well within the discretion of the Tribunal to reject material that would have added nothing to what was already acknowledged.
• [41] As to the home photographs, it is unfortunate if HN had not previously seen them. I understand that CN had provided them to the Tribunal a few days before the hearing on 27 March 2019, presumably in purported compliance with directions made by the Tribunal on 19 December 2018. Those directions did not require materials to be served upon HN, because he was not at that time an interested person as defined in [8] of those directions. I understand that HN applied to become an "interested party" on 25 March 2019 and was able to attend the hearing on 27 March. I am not aware of any reason why HN or his lawyers could not have inspected the Tribunal's file and seen those photographs any time between then and 3 February 2020. Further, once the President referred to those photographs during the Hearing, HN or Mr Lawford could have requested to see them.
• [42] Like the three hospital photographs, the home photographs were of no evidentiary or forensic value, particularly as it was common ground that UNN was in poor physical health in November 2018. By the time of the hearing in February 2020 there had been significant changes to the relevant circumstances. These included the fact that UNN's physical condition seems to have improved since then with continued care at Regis Tiwi. Moreover, SX was no longer involved with UNN nor with seeking guardianship of her, and HN and the Darwin daughters were all taking a much more active interest in UNN and her well-being than they had prior to November 2018.
• [43] As with ground 1, complaints about the Tribunal's dealings with the photographs would not amount to an error of law. They purported to be challenges to the Tribunal's exercise of discretion as to what further evidence if any was relevant to an issue in the proceeding.

Ground 3 - evidence regarding the relationship breakdown

• [44] No question of law is involved in this ground. It is simply a challenge to the weight that might or might not be attached to and inferences drawn from hearsay, lay opinions and speculation about the involvement of SX with UNN some years earlier, and the effect that might or might not have had on the relationship between the daughters and their mother. In any event that material was of very little, if any, relevance to the issue before the Tribunal, namely who should be appointed as UNN's guardian.

• [45] Ground 4 was abandoned by HN during oral submissions as he correctly conceded that his criticisms of ON's conduct were no longer relevant as she was not appointed as a guardian. I would note further that she was not put forward as a potential guardian at, or any time after the time of, the Hearing. Even if she had been put forward as a potential guardian I fail to see what if any weight could be given to events that may or may not have occurred in 2016.

• [46] I refuse leave to appeal. Even if leave was given the appeal would have been dismissed.
• [47] I will hear the parties on costs.

[2] See Re UNN [2018] NTCAT 1133.

[3] UNN's fourth daughter AN was and had been in England.

[5] [2019] NTSC 89 (Booth) at [1] - [3], [32] - [34] and [52].

[6] Booth at [33] and the authorities cited therein.

[7] Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27; (2006) 149 FCR 522 at [13] per Branson J (Spender and Nicholson JJ agreeing).

[8] Booth at [33] and the authorities cited therein.

[9] City of Mandurah v Australian Flying Corps & Royal Australian Air Force Association (WA Division) Inc [2016] WASCA 185; 50 WAR 466 at [37] per Buss P (Martin CJ and Newnes JA agreeing).

[10] Booth at [34] and the authorities cited therein.

[11] Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2010] HCA 24; 241 CLR 320 at [21] per French CJ, Gummow and Bell JJ. See too TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1988] FCA 198; 82 ALR 175 at 182.

[12] Richmond Football Club Ltd v Verraty Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 597 at [12] per Croft J.

[13] Booth at [52] and the authorities cited therein.

[15] King v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2018] WASCA 195 at [166] per Murphy, Mitchell and Pritchard JJA.

[16] See Richmond Football Club Ltd v Verraty Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 597 at [12] per Croft J.

[17] Booth at [52] and the authorities cited therein.

[19] Submissions of the Applicant dated 30 June 2020 (Applicant's Submissions) at [3].

[20] Applicant's Submissions [4]. For convenience I shall refer to these as "the three hospital photographs".

[21] Annexure AN 4 to the Applicant's affidavit of 25 May 2020.

[22] Annexures AN 5 and 6 to the Applicant's affidavit of 25 May 2020.

[23] Applicant's Submissions at [9] referring to a report on behalf of the Office of Public Guardian dated 18 December 2018.

[24] Applicant's Submissions at [10] and Annexure AN 1 to the Applicant's affidavit of 25 May 2020.

[25] For convenience I shall refer to these photographs as the "home photographs".

[28] Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Another [2018] HCA 34; (2018) 264 CLR 123 at 133-4 [27] - [31], Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3; 264 CLR 421 at [49], and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH [2015] HCA 40; 256 CLR 326 at [30].

[37] Applicant's Submissions at [1] and [2].

[38] Transcript of the Hearing at p 3.

[39] Transcript of the Hearing at p 4. Although not pre-relevant for present purposes, this assertion by HN considerably understated UNN's medical and mental condition. During the earlier proceedings there had been clear evidence that UNN was suffering from dementia and impaired decision-making capacity of the kind described in s 5 of the Act.

[40] Transcript of the Hearing at p 7.

[41] Transcript of the Hearing at p 7.

[42] Transcript of the Hearing at pp 9.9-10.5.

[43] Transcript of the Hearing at p 11.

[46] Transcript of the Hearing at pp 11.9-21.

[47] See for example the report of Dr Aruna Muthumala dated 17 December 2018, referred to in [21] of and attached as Annexure LKK-6 to the Affidavit of Lorraine Katherine King dated 10 June 2020, and the Guardianship Report of Ms Tracey Campbell dated 21 March 2019 referred to in [22] of and attached as Annexure LKK-7 to the Affidavit of Lorraine Katherine King dated 10 June 2020.

[48] These were the three hospital photographs.

[49] Transcript of the Hearing at p 5.

[50] Transcript of the Hearing at p 17.