MN & WN [2025] QCAT 261 (19 May 2025)

Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth)

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 10, s 11B, s 12, s 14(2), s 15, s 22, s 103, Schedule 2 and 4

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13, s 58

Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld)

Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld), s 34

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

Lambourne and Ors v Marrable and Ors [2023] QSC 219

• [1] Senior Member Browne: MN, 88-years-old, and WN, 92-years-old, have been married approximately 62 years. They spent the majority of their life living in Papua New Guinea and then, more recently, in Sydney. They have one son, OI, and his family who live in Cairns. They also have family and friends living in Melbourne and Sydney.
• [2] In about October 2022, MN and WN moved from Sydney to Cairns and settled in [BHQ], a residential care service. This became a permanent placement on 8 November 2022. They have connecting rooms and care is provided within the facility. MN appointed his only son, OI, as an attorney under the New South Wales law that applies for enduring documents on 12 August 2019 for financial matters. MN also appointed WN and OI on 16 December 2005 as an enduring guardian.
• [3] WN appointed her only son, OI, as an attorney, under New South Wales law, for financial matters on 11 July 2019 and appointed MN and OI on 25 February 2010 as an enduring guardian.
• [4] The Tribunal is determining applications filed under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) ('GAA Act') and the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld) ('Powers of Attorney Act') concerning both WN and MN. Although separate matters, it is convenient for the Tribunal to hear both matters together and to deliver reasons for both matters because the evidence filed is relevant to each of the matters. It is also convenient to refer to MN and WN collectively as the 'Ns'. The issues to be considered are set out in the applications filed by SE and were canvassed in the hearing. SE is a second cousin to MN. MU is also related to MN.
• [5] SE is seeking orders that:

(a) the attorney, OI, appointed under the Enduring Powers of Attorney for the Ns be removed;

(b) the Enduring Powers of Attorney appointing OI by the Ns be revoked; and

(c) SE, together with MU, be appointed jointly and severally as a guardian and an administrator for MN and WN.

• [6] SE relies on a number of statements, recordings and other information, including an offer of suitable placement in an aged care facility in Sydney that SE says will accept MN and WN. SE says that a move to Sydney will fulfil MN and WN's desire to be among friends and family.

Contentions and issues raised by the applicant, SE

• [7] The concerns and issues raised by SE that were further expanded upon in the hearing, can be summarised as follows:

(a) the Ns wish to return to Sydney to live where they previously lived for some of their married life;

(b) there are concerns regarding the level of care being provided in the current aged care facility;

(c) there are concerns regarding communicating with and contacting the Ns; and

(d) there are concerns regarding the management of the Ns' finances.

• [8] Regarding the first contention raised by SE, that the Ns are isolated in Cairns, and the current attorney, OI, is refusing to return the Ns to Sydney: there is a failure by the attorney to make arrangements for the Ns to relocate to Sydney. Family can visit them in Sydney and they have friends located there. It is the Ns' wish to return to Sydney, and they do not want to have their final resting days in Cairns. There is also a submission advanced that suitable arrangements can be made to safely transport the Ns from Cairns to Sydney.
• [9] The second contention or allegation concerns the level of care being provided in the current aged care facility that is said to be inadequate: SE submits that where the Ns reside in Cairns is a high crime area. When SE has spoken to MN and WN about the level of care provided, for example physiotherapy, SE submits that they are not receiving suitable physiotherapy to the same level that is necessary. SE also has concerns about MN being medicated in the facility. There are concerns raised by SE that WN is heavily drugged to the point where she could not wake up. MU also noticed some drinks being left in the room. There are contentions raised about the state of the room being untidy and with respect to cleanliness, and with respect to WN's chair not working.
• [10] There is also an issue with respect to communication and contact by family and friends. There is reference to a failure of the centre to also inform OI, the attorney, of ongoing issues in the facility. With respect to [the issue] of communication, there is a concern that MN and WN do not have access to a phone in the room.
• [11] In relation to financial matters, SE is content for the chartered accountants to continue to conduct the Ns' financial affairs. SE says that some concerns have been raised by MN and WN about OI and the management of their money, and there have been some specific incidents relayed to SE by MN and WN with respect to money missing and the purchase of a boat by OI.
• [12] At the commencement of the hearing, there was a document provided to the Tribunal titled Enduring Power of Attorney Revocation dated 28 March 2024 for WN. This document was filed by SE on the basis that it is not, by operation of law, intended to be a purported revocation of the Enduring Power of Attorney, but a representation of WN's wishes.

• [13] In relation to the contentions and allegations raised, the attorney, OI, says that there is no evidence that supports the allegations that he has acted improperly.
• [14] In referring to bank records, OI says that the records show dealings prior to the attorney's powers being enacted. OI provides an explanation about the issue with respect to a boat that he says was purchased by him prior to the [Ns'] diagnosis. OI relies on some information filed in support, including the letter from a chartered accountant, and he also relies on a letter provided by the Queensland Complaints Operation from the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, that is relevant to the level of care being provided. In short, OI says that these are all false allegations, particularly with respect to any contentions that he is sedating his parents, and refers to spending quality time with his parents, MN and WN, including quite recently, and refers the Tribunal to the medical evidence that documents the current diagnoses particularly with respect to MN's diagnosed dementia, and I will come back to that shortly.

• [15] There is also some allegations and submissions made in terms of when SE came to be involved in MN and WN's life and how that came about. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to make any findings about that, nor is it necessary for the Tribunal to make findings about whether MN and WN should be moved, because the Tribunal only has the power with respect to an enduring document as provided under the Powers of Attorney Act, and that includes, as outlined in the hearing, the power to remove an attorney or revoke an enduring document, amongst other things.
• [16] With respect to appointing guardians and administrators, amongst other powers that the Tribunal has under the GAA Act, appointing a guardian or an administrator is with respect to a particular matter, and a matter includes personal matters and financial matters as defined under the legislation.[1]
• [17] The Tribunal gave SE an opportunity to respond to the attorney, OI, and has also given the attorney, OI, an opportunity to provide his material to be relied upon. Importantly, with respect to the proceeding, is the views of WN and MN that the Tribunal is required to take into account under the GAA Act and also in considering appointing substituted decision-makers and exercising a function or power in that respect to apply the general principles which also capture the importance of taking into account, amongst other things, the views, wishes and preferences of WN and MN. Of course, there is also, by operation of the law, a presumption of capacity and I will come back to that shortly.

• [18] The opportunity to speak to WN was utilised today in the hearing. I spoke to WN by Teams. I could see WN sitting in the aged care facility where she resides. I asked her some questions and it became clear that for her current age of 92 years, soon to be turning 93, she understandably becomes fatigued at times, but she was able to tell me that she has been married to MN for 62 years, where she has lived most of her life and that she has a son, OI. She was unable to recall the names of her grandchildren and specifically where she was [presently] living. WN did make it clear to the Tribunal that she did not want to be in Cairns. She did not know why, but she did say, in her words, that it must have been a bad experience. WN [told] the Tribunal that she would like to live in Sydney, where she has lots of friends.
• [19] Without going into the full extent of the conversation that I had with WN, it was clear that she expressed a view of wishing to move to Sydney. WN also did defer, at times, to MN's view and she did tell me that she recalled signing a document (titled Enduring Power of Attorney Revocation), which I have indicated is not being contended as [by law] a revocation of an enduring power of attorney. However, WN did tell me that she recalled signing [the document] and that it was to remove OI.
• [20] The Tribunal also heard from MN, by Teams. I was able to see MN sitting in the aged care facility where he resides. MN [told] me, on a number of occasions, that he had only just woken up. To use his words, "you got me in a sound", [meaning] that he was sound asleep prior to speaking to me and kept referring to being heavily asleep. MN was unable to tell me the name of his grandchild who was in the room with him. He referred to his granddaughter as being his niece. But he did make it clear to the Tribunal that, although being confused about where he was, he did wish to live in Sydney. He referred to wanting to live in Neutral Bay. He also told the Tribunal about his time in Papua New Guinea and that he had been married to WN for about 61 years. He also told the Tribunal that he had concerns about his son, OI, and that was very clearly heard, and that he had concerns about money being misappropriated.

• [21] The evidence filed, that is relevant to the issues today, are contained in a number of statements filed by SE, as well as other material, statements and submissions from OI. It is important to say that it is not contentious that WN and MN do not have capacity to make decisions about their personal matters and financial matters. There is medical evidence in relation to their capacity that is open for the Tribunal to accept. The medical evidence is contained in a number of reports. With respect to MN, there is recently a report of Dr E who reports moderate Alzheimer's disease, macular degeneration, medication being prescribed to treat behavioural and psychotic symptoms and dementia.
• [22] Everyone agrees today that MN does not have capacity to make complex decisions about his personal and financial matters.[2] In relation to WN, again there is a number of medical reports that were outlined in the hearing today. All of [the reports] indicate that WN has visual loss. More recently, Dr E, on 3 May 2025, reported a limited understanding in reporting information, major neurocognitive disorder consistent with dementia and severe degenerative arthritis. It is accepted today, based on the medical reports, that a decision about accommodation services is a complex decision and that WN and MN would not be able to make that decision, and also with respect to financial matters [and], managing financial matters, that they would rely on their attorney or an administrator, if appointed.

• [23] It is also accepted in the hearing that the Enduring Power of Attorney is valid, and by operation of s 34 of the Powers of Attorney Act, the enduring power of attorney appointing an attorney under New South Wales law is to be recognised in Queensland and is to be treated as if it had been made in compliance with the Powers of Attorney Act.
• [24] The issue to be determined is whether the enduring power of attorney remains a suitable arrangement for both WN and MN. I should pause here to say that with respect to WN appointing MN as a guardian, and MN appointing WN as a personal guardian, that presently falls entirely to the sole attorney of OI.
• [25] Determining whether the Enduring Power of Attorney should remain, or whether the attorney, OI, should be removed, requires findings and a consideration about the contentions or issues raised by SE. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the evidence that there is a need for a decision to be made about accommodation, provision of services and who should have contact or visits with WN and SE.[3] This is because there is overwhelming evidence that I have heard, from WN and MN in particular, that they have a desire to move back to Sydney.

• [26] A move to Sydney is a complex decision, because it requires consideration of health professional reports. Importantly, whether it is safe for MN and WN to move, because, in addition to their diagnosis and condition of Alzheimer's disease with respect to MN and dementia with respect to WN, there are other mobility issues. WN is in a wheelchair, she becomes fatigued, she chooses, at times, to rest. There are other complex issues with respect to MN and the documented reports of his behavioural disturbance and, at times, aggression, and whether moving and being in an unfamiliar environment would be safe. So, these are all complex decisions. In addition to that, there is sourcing the accommodation, ensuring that both WN and MN could live together. That will involve a consideration around the level of care and services that can be provided in the new accommodation setting. So, accommodation and provision of services are complex decisions.
• [27] It is open for the Tribunal to find that there is a need for decisions to be made about contact. It is clear that there is disagreement or disharmony amongst family and friends of WN and MN. Perhaps some of MN's more recent expression of views can be explained by the medical evidence, but at its heart, is his expressed desire to move and his views need to be taken into account. Whether a decision can be made to safely transport and accommodate WN and MN in Sydney will require either the attorney or a guardian to make.

Need for a substituted decision-maker and suitability of the enduring powers of attorney decision-making regime

• [28] The need for a decision to be made about accommodation, provision of services and contact, more broadly, is important because, in looking at whether the existing arrangement, which is the enduring power of attorney, is suitable, the GAA Act does provide some guidance about not only the suitability of a proposed appointee with respect to a guardian, but that also needs to be looked at in the context of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act. So, is there evidence, to the required Briginshaw standard,[4] that the current attorney is not able to properly exercise his duties and powers in making the decision about accommodation, services and contact?
• [29] The applicant, SE, also raises concerns around the suitability of the enduring document and the attorney's ability to exercise powers and obligations more broadly, but at the moment, I am addressing the need for a decision which is imminent about accommodation, services and contact. If a guardian is appointed, there is the option of overtaking the existing enduring power of attorney. If I find that the current attorney and the proposed appointees, SE and MU, are not, for the purposes of s 14(2), appropriate, then there is also the option of the Public Guardian. The Public Guardian may be appointed for the matter subject to the requirements under s 12 of the GAA Act being met.
• [30] I need to make a finding as to whether the current attorney is exercising his duties and powers responsibly. One of the requirements under the Powers of Attorney Act, with respect to an attorney, is to apply the general principles. The same general principles are reflected under the GAA Act. Whether a proposed appointee, with respect to appointing a guardian or an administrator, is able to apply the general principles is also a relevant consideration under s 15 of the GAA Act.
• [31] There is a contested issue about whether or not MN and WN should move to Sydney. Some of the evidence that I have considered includes recordings of conversations and a video which I have listened to and viewed. It is apparent from viewing the video and listening to the recordings that, again, as I have heard from MN and WN, that they have expressed a desire to move.
• [32] It is also clear that it is a highly emotive issue involving family who do not agree, particularly with respect to one of the recordings. WN can be heard in the background becoming distressed, as is MN. In respect of that recording, the current attorney was present together with the applicant (SE). I have made clear in the hearing my concerns about the recordings of conversations in terms of possible implications under the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) and the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth).
• [33] For those reasons, the recordings and video have not been played in the hearing in the presence of others, and particularly in circumstances where I am not satisfied that WN and MN, who were a party to those recordings and conversations, freely and voluntarily gave their consent to it. That is of particular concern.
• [34] That said, the Tribunal can inform itself in any way it considers appropriate. The recordings are relevant, significant and credible to an issue I have to decide, and what it tells me - and I am open to draw a reasonable inference that the decision around accommodation, provision of services and contact is a highly emotive one, that the current enduring power of attorney arrangement is not suitable and that the proposed appointees, SE and MU are also not a suitable proposal, because it is abundantly clear that there is an inability to independently consider the decision in a way which is respectful, objective and taking into account all of the circumstances. Put simply, having a disagreement in front of WN and MN is not helpful, and causes them to be uncomfortable, and at times, it was clearly distressing to WN in particular.
• [35] In respect of the enduring power of attorney document and whether I should revoke it, it is important to say that there is a presumption at law that WN and MN had capacity at the time they executed that enduring power of attorney. It was not contended or contested in the hearing that they did not. As held in Lambourne and Ors v Marrable and Ors [2023] QSC 219 ('Lambourne'):

[42] ...[that] presumption includes the implicit presumption that the principal was capable of making the enduring power of attorney freely and voluntarily, and that the principal understood the nature and effect of the enduring power of attorney.

[43] This presumption is to be applied by the court but it may be rebutted if 'the contrary is proven.' Such proof need only meet the civil standard but, given the nature of the matter and the consequences of a finding of a lack of capacity, the proof must be to the Briginshaw standard.[5]

• [36] Lambourne is instructive in terms of how the Tribunal goes about considering the evidence relevant to whether the attorney is presently executing their duties and responsibilities and whether that enduring power of attorney continues to be a suitable arrangement, because that is the decision-making arrangement that MN and WN put in place at the time the document was validly executed. It is not contested here that it was not.
• [37] There must be clear and cogent evidence or, on balance, good reason to change that arrangement. A good reason would be that the attorney is failing to discharge their duties and obligations, including applying the general principles. I have made a finding with respect to a need for a decision of accommodation, provision of service and contact. So, to that extent, I am looking at a decision-making regime that will not put WN and MN in a position where they become distressed, or a decision made where a move to Sydney will not properly take into account, in a safe and respectful way, their views and wishes and the views of the health professionals and also family and friends, who are very important to MN and WN, and maintaining that contact.
• [38] Similarly, with contact, a contact decision requires, again, as reflected in the general principles, respecting their views with respect to their friends.
• [39] In terms of the enduring power of attorney document, I am not satisfied, on balance, that the allegations of financial abuse raised by SE, which I accept is a reflection of, to some extent, concerns that have been raised by WN and MN - that is documented - have been proven to the required standard.
• [40] There is before me evidence in the form of correspondence from XT Chartered Accountants dated 29 January 2025 that confirms they have been acting as accountants and tax agents for OI and OJ, OI's wife, for a period of time. It is, in my view, compelling evidence with respect to OI and OJ's intentions, if there was such a suggestion - and I am not making that finding - that they were taking money belonging to MN and WN or misappropriating or mismanaging their funds. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the aged care fees have not been paid, that MN and WN are not able to access money as they need it.
• [41] I appreciate there has been an allegation with respect to a telephone, but that is going to fall more broadly within the context of a contact decision. There is also in the correspondence from the chartered accountants some reference to management of MN and WN's finances. There has also been some evidence that I heard - albeit in an oral submission made by SE - that there were documented concerns about money going missing from an account. That money was paid into a fixed term deposit. So that is securing the funds. That is actually representative of a decision to ensure that funds are safely managed and are accruing a rate of interest, rather than being left in a savings account that would not accrue a rate of interest. With respect to any allegations or contentions around financial matters, I am not satisfied, based on the evidence, the allegation is proven. With the balance of the contentions around the level of care that would fall within a provision of service and accommodation, I have found that a decision needs to be made.
• [42] However, in respect of the evidence provided so far, I rely on the report from a senior complaints officer, of the Queensland Complaints Operation, Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The letter dated 19 December 2024 confirms that there is no concern regarding the care that is being provided. This appears to be with respect to MN. I made it clear in the hearing that an approved aged care provider has legislative responsibilities under the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) and the Quality of Care Principles 2014 (Cth). There is also the Quality of Care Commissioner. There is a duty of reportable incidents, and I have also read the statements provided by the general manager and I am not satisfied that the care is inadequate to the extent that it is relevant and goes to prove a failure by the attorney to execute a duty or obligation.
• [43] As to the balance of the contentions made, again, I am not satisfied that it is sufficient to revoke the enduring powers of attorney that were put in place by MN and WN at a time when they had capacity to do so and was clearly the decision-making arrangement that they wished to put in place in the event that they were no longer able to make decisions about their personal, financial, and health matters. The Tribunal is disinclined to revoke the enduring power of attorney document under the Powers of Attorney Act or to remove the existing attorney. In relation to proceeding under the GAA Act to overtake the existing enduring power of attorney, I am satisfied the requirements under s 12 of the GAA Act have been satisfied. I have found there is a complex decision to be made about accommodation, provision of services, and with whom WN and MN should have contact and visits.

• [44] The medical evidence that I accept, in relation to MN, is contained in reports of Dr E dated 3 May 2025, Dr H dated 17 November 2024, Professor S dated 11 May 2025, Dr S dated 15 November 2024 and earlier reports dated 8 February 2024, 27 July 2023 and 18 July 2023. There is also a report of LP dated 29 March 2022 and RE dated 31 May 2021.
• [45] With respect to MN, I find that the presumption of capacity has been rebutted. MN has moderate Alzheimer's disease, macular degeneration and is prescribed medication to treat behavioural and psychotic symptoms. He also has short term memory, ongoing paranoia and delusions, and does not have capacity to make decisions about accommodation, provision of services or contact.
• [46] In relation to WN, I accept the reports of Dr E dated 3 May 2025, Dr S dated 29 January 2025 and Dr H dated 17 November 2024. I find that, with respect to WN, the presumption of capacity is rebutted. WN has a visual loss or impairment, she will at times defer to MN for her decision-making, and this is due to a major neurocognitive disorder, consistent with dementia. She also has mobility issues and, not unexpectedly at 92 years of age, can at times have reduced ability to engage in conversations and she does prefer to rest. Making a decision about where she should live, services and contact is complex, and, based on the medical evidence, I am satisfied that the presumption of capacity for those matters is rebutted.

Tribunal findings about appointment of the Public Guardian

• [47] As I have already found, it is not contentious that the Enduring Power of Attorney has been enacted, and that is also clear from the medical evidence. There is reference in the various reports more recently to the Enduring Power of Attorney being enacted, and that is not disputed today. In relation to a need for a decision, I have made findings about that, that there is a need for a decision to be made about accommodation, services and contact for the purposes of s 12. In respect of s 14(2), I have also found that the current decision-making regime, importantly the attorney, is not suitable because of the disagreement that exists between family and friends and the inability of the attorney to independently exercise some care in how those conversations take place because it is apparent they are highly emotive and deeply personal. I appreciate that these are not easy decisions to make. With respect to SE and MU, I am not satisfied they are appropriate.
• [48] SE has submitted that she sourced accommodation, and I do not dispute that. Further, that she is committed to going to Sydney, again, I do not dispute that. OI, equally, has indicated that he is committed to visiting his parents. An independent appointee such as the Public Guardian would be able to take an objective view and navigate those sensitive and emotive issues by speaking in a respectful way with MN and WN, as well as health professionals. They would also communicate with family and make decisions about accommodation, provision of services and with whom they should have contact.
• [49] I am also satisfied that the Public Guardian will be well-placed to apply the general principles that must be applied by a proposed appointee and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to overtake the existing enduring power of attorney. The Tribunal has the power to do that, and this was something that was canvassed with the parties in the hearing, and that power comes from s 22 of the GAA Act.

Application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

• [50] In making my decision, I am also required to apply the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('Human Rights Act'), and that is important because the Human Rights Act is the law which recognises relevant rights, and when I am exercising powers under the GAA Act and the Powers of Attorney Act, I am acting in an administrative capacity, and the Tribunal is a public entity for the purposes of s 58.
• [51] If I am making a declaration, I am also arguably acting in a judicial capacity because I am exercising both judicial and administrative powers. A declaration requires making a final decision with respect to an enduring document, which is deciding legal controversies and settling a dispute. Arguably, it could be an exercise of judicial power. It is important to mention this because I will identify relevant human rights and take them into account. I need to ensure that I have considered the human rights and that any human rights that are limited and engaged are reasonable and justified. The rights that are limited and engaged are WN and MN's rights to be recognised as a person before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination. I am appointing a guardian and overtaking an enduring power of attorney, which was their intention at the relevant time as to who should be making decisions on their behalf.
• [52] I am also appointing the Public Guardian to handle discreet areas of their personal matters, and I am not setting aside the existing power of attorney regime; however, their rights to be recognised as a person before the law - including putting in place an enduring power of attorney - is being overtaken today. It is in respect of the least restrictive areas of their personal and financial matters. Also, WN and MN have a right to own their own property and to participate in the hearing, which would be in respect of a fair hearing. I did hear from both WN and MN.
• [53] In respect of their property matters, the enduring power of attorney will remain. There is also the right to privacy and not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. That will be impacted because MN and WN's personal and sensitive information will be shared with the Public Guardian through the appointment of the guardian. I have also taken into account the possible rights to privacy and reputation being impacted with respect to the playing of the recordings, which I have declined to do in this public hearing, but I have viewed that material. The right to a fair hearing is engaged and I have mentioned that I have taken into account MN and WN's views and wishes.
• [54] The GAA Act and the Powers of Attorney Act contain general principles that also reflect relevant rights. The GAA Act also provides for the appointment of guardians and administrators, amongst other things, and seeks to strike a balance between the right of an adult with impaired capacity to the greatest possible degree of autonomy and decision-making, and the adult's right to adequate and appropriate support with decision-making. The GAA Act also acknowledges the right of a person with impaired capacity to make decisions, to be restricted and interfered with to the least possible extent. I am satisfied that the limits imposed on MN and WN's human rights by the making of these orders are reasonable and justified in accordance with s 13 of the Human Rights Act.
• [55] I have applied the GAA Act, including the general principles. I have recognised, by operation of law, the New South Wales Enduring Power of Attorney and taken into account MN and WN's views and wishes.

(1) The Public Guardian is appointed as a guardian for WN for the following personal matters:

(a) accommodation;

(b) provision of services; and

(c) with whom WN has contact and visits.

(2) This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in two (2) years.

• [57] I have set that review for two years because I think that it will be a sufficient amount of time in order for any decision that is made to be overseen in terms of ongoing accommodation, services and contact.

(3) The following Enduring Powers of Attorney for WN are overtaken by the making of this appointment, and in accordance with s 22(2) of the GAA Act can no longer be acted upon to the extent that these appointments have been made:

(a) The Enduring Power of Attorney, dated 11 July 2019, appointing OI as attorney for financial matters.

(b) The Enduring Power of Attorney, dated 25 February 2010, appointing MN and OI as attorneys for personal and health matters.

(4) The application for an order about an Enduring Power of Attorney is dismissed.

(5) The application by SE for the appointment of an administrator for WN is dismissed.

• [58] I am going to make the same orders with respect to MN, except the orders for the enduring powers of attorney are slightly different.

(1) The Public Guardian is appointed as a guardian for MN for the decisions about the following personal matters:

(a) accommodation;

(b) provision of services; and

(c) with whom MN has contact and visits.

(2) This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in two (2) years.

(3) The following Enduring Powers of Attorney for MN are overtaken by the making of these appointments, and in accordance with s 22(2) of the GAA Act, can no longer be acted upon to the extent that these appointments have been made:

(a) The Enduring Power of Attorney dated 12 August 2019 appointing OI as attorney for financial matters.

(b) The enduring power of attorney dated 16 December 2005 appointing WN and OI for personal and health matters.

(4) The application for an order about an Enduring of Power of Attorney is dismissed.

(5) The application by SE for the appointment of an administrator for MN is dismissed.

Material relied upon and relevant to the proceedings

• [59] I read into the record all of the documents that I have considered are credible, relevant and significant to an issue, to be determined for the purposes of s 103 of the GAA Act.
• [60] With respect to MN, the medical reports of Dr E dated 3 May 2025 and 22 October 2024; Dr H dated 17 November 2024. In respect of reports of Professor S, reports dated 11 May 2025, 15 November 2024, 8 February 2024, 27 July 2023 and 18 January 2023. The report of LP dated 20 February 2022, amended on 29 March 2022. The report of RE dated 31 May 2021.
• [61] In relation to other documents relating to MN's matter, there is the amended notice of hearing, certificate of advice of hearing, appropriateness and competence advice of MU, appropriateness and competence advice of SE. The Enduring Power of Attorney dated 12 August 2019, and the Enduring Power of Attorney dated 16 December 2005. The application for an order about an enduring power of attorney, application for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator, the various directions and decisions made by the Tribunal.
• [62] There is joint material relevant to both MN and WN's matters: statement of SB, statement of SE, statement of IH, another statement of IH dated 31 January 2025 and 6 November 2024. The statement of SE dated 6 November 2024. Statement of FJ dated 9 October 2024. Statement of PK dated 9 October 2024. Letter of Dr H dated 9 May 2025. Submission by SE dated 8 May 2025. The statement of DG dated 14 March 2025. Report of Dr K dated 24 February 2025. Submission by WN dated 28 March 2025. Submissions by SE filed on 9 May 2025, 12 May 2025, 26 November 2024, 14 November 2024, and 21 October 2024. Statement of MU dated 5 April 2025.
• [63] Documents filed by OI: the letter from KL, Solicitor, dated 16 October 2024. Statement of WF dated 12 May 2025. Statement of WF dated 31 January 2025. Email from WF dated 31 October 2024. Submissions of OI dated 12 May 2025 and 31 January 2025. A letter from the accountants dated 29 January 2025. Email from the physio dated 6 January 2025. Complaint from the Aged Care Commission dated 19 December 2024. Email in relation to intentions of where they wish to be buried dated 20 February 2021. The Aged Care Commission letter dated 19 December 2024. Recordings dated 12 December 2024, 30 November 2024, 26 November 2024 and 1 November 2024.
• [64] In relation to WN, there is HPR of Dr E dated 3 May 2025. Dr S dated 29 January 2025. Dr H dated 17 November 2024. Dr E dated 3 May 2025. There's an amended notice of hearing, certificate of advice of hearing, appropriateness and competence advice for SE and MU. Enduring Power of Attorney dated 11 July 2019 and 25 February 2010. Applications for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator, and application for an order about an enduring power of attorney.
• [65] For the record, the recordings were filed on 24 October 2024 and were taken on 19 September 2024. The recording dated 10 December 2024 was taken on 17 October 2024 and the recording dated 10 December 2024, taken on 17 October 2024.

[2] See sch 4 of the GAA Act for the definition of 'capacity'.

[4] See Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[5] Lambourne and Ors v Marrable and Ors [2023] QSC 219, [42]-[43].