//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2018] QCAT 224
defendant. The application by JAR to be joined as an active party is dismissed
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed an application by JAR to be joined as an active party to proceedings concerning her brother KR's guardianship and administration. The Tribunal found that JAR did not need formal party status because she could already participate in the hearing through her brother (the applicant), access information through family networks, and had provided her views in writing. Additionally, JAR was seeking different orders (about KR's medical treatment and living arrangements) than those actually before the Tribunal, making her application misconceived. The decision emphasises that joinder under section 42 of the QCAT Act requires necessity, not merely convenience, and that alternative participation mechanisms may suffice.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (Qld).
[1] On 25 May 2018, I made the decision to dismiss an application by JAR to be joined as an active party. An earlier application had been made to the tribunal by CR, her brother, seeking to be appointed as the administrator and guardian for KR. It is noted in CR's application that he did not identify JAR as one of the adult's primary contacts, that is, people who may have an interest in the application.
[2] There was conflict within KR's family regarding his medical condition and his accommodation. CR wanted a complete review of KR's medical condition, including by a vascular surgeon. He wanted his brother KR to come and live with him and his family on their parents' family farm.
[3] KR identified that there was an enduring document in existence. In an Advanced Health Directive dated 29 January 2011, KR had appointed JB and SI, his two daughters and AR, his wife, as his attorneys for personal/health matters severally. In an Enduring Power of Attorney dated 29 January 2011, KR had appointed JB, SI and AR for financial and personal/health matters severally (any one of them may decide).
[4] KR had been diagnosed with dementia and spent a period of time in the Prince Charles Hospital, Cognitive Assessment and Management Unit. On the 1 August 2017, KR was moved to Anam Cara nursing home.
[5] In JAR's application, she stated that she was seeking an order (to be joined as an active party) to 'have an urgent Specialist opinion for my brother KR to see if help is available to fix his blocked Carotid artery'. Further, JAR sought 'an order from the tribunal to have KR released from his Nursing Home Care to our brother CR's care for KR to live with permanently.'
[6] While the Tribunal is very mindful that the issues faced by the family are upsetting, traumatic and stressful, I decided that JAR did not need to be joined as a party as she was going to participate in the hearing, had access to information through her family networks and had provided her views in writing to the tribunal. There was no impediment to her contributing to the process within the hearing.
[7] Active parties may present their case at a hearing, inspect documents, seek leave to be represented and be given a copy of the Tribunal's decision and any written reasons for them. JAR is able to receive this information through her brother CR, the applicant for the matters before the hearing, with whom she has a close relationship.
[8] Section 42 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld) specifies that joining a person as a party to a proceeding occurs if the Tribunal considers that:
(a) The person should be bound by, or have the benefit of a decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding; or
(b) The person's interests may be affected by the proceeding; or
(c) For another reason, it is desirable that the person be joined as a party to a proceeding.
[9] For the reasons outlined in paragraphs 6 and 7, I was satisfied that the application to be joined as an active party by JAR was not necessary. It is also apparent that JAR's application appeared to be seeking a different outcome, which is for orders to be made about KR's health and where he should live, to the actual purpose of the submitted application. In this regard, JAR's application is misconceived.
[10] For the reasons outlined above, the application by JAR to be joined as an active party was dismissed.
The application by JAR to be joined as an active party is dismissed