disability – need – initial requests for funds without being
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
Guardianship stream – review of administration order –administration – decision-making ability – profoundintellectualdisability – need – initial requests for funds without beingsubstantiated – vulnerability and isolationof [ST] – administrationorder continued.
Judgment (4 paragraphs)
[1]
The application indicates that ST's impaired decision-making capacity impacts her ability to manage her finances, and a need continues for an order to ensure the protection of her finances and to enable her to have some savings for future needs.
At hearing Mr Strutton gave evidence that Public Trustee holds savings for ST in two accounts which total $12,705.83. Public Trustee receives ST's Centrelink disability support pension and provides ST with fortnightly payments of $500.00 for payment of her living expenses and $200.00 for personal spending. I was advised that ST was not receiving rental assistance because no lease agreement had been obtained from ST which could be filed with Centrelink. At the subsequent hearing on the 1 September 2025, it was clarified that ST's name was not on the lease, only DN's, meaning ST was not eligible for rent assistance.
Mr Strutton advised that ST is supported by the Public Trustee when she requests additional funds. Mr Strutton stated that ST had requested extra funds totalling just over $3000.00 in the last annual reporting period which included funds to go camping. Mr Strutton indicated that requests are made by ST by email or through DN. Mr Strutton indicated that Public Trustee had numerous times offered to meet with ST face to face, but this has not been responded to or accepted. Mr Strutton indicated that communication had not been straightforward and that a preference had been indicated by ST and DN for email contact. Ms Woods confirmed that ST did have a phone and could use a capturing service to enable communication. Mr Strutton noted Public Trustee had only recently received a phone number for ST.
Ms Woods said her instructions were that ST had requested additional funds for orthotic shoes which had been declined by Public Trustee and a further sum of $120.00 to go camping. Ms Woods said she had offered to advocate and speak with Public Trustee, but ST and DN did not wish her to.
Mr Strutton advised that ST had contacted Public Trustee requesting a cash payment of $700.00 be paid to her. When Public Trustee attempted to clarify the purpose for the funds, the request was reduced to approximately $345.00 for the purchase of orthotic shoes. Mr Strutton confirmed Public Trustee had paid an invoice on 8 May 2025 for shoes for ST. Mr Strutton indicated a further request for $600.00 for winter camping clothing was made.
Ms Woods stated that she had clarified with ST that request for camping clothes was to purchase good quality outdoor clothing. Mr Strutton confirmed payment was made.
Ms Wood stated that ST's will and preference is that she have full control of her financial matters. This was also confirmed in Dr CX's report, as the will and preference of ST.
Ms Woods submitted ST does not need an administrator as ST's only income is a pension and money is paid to her carer DN to meet her living expenses. Ms Woods stated ST doesn't pay any bills except phone credit of $50.00 per month and saves money for a funeral plan from her spending money and is supported to do so by DN. A request was also made to retain the gifting order if an administration order was continued and if possible, to increase ST's gifting from $800.00 to $1000.00 per annum. Ms Wood was unable to clarify who the gifting was for.
Ms Woods stated that ST wanted to go on a holiday to Surfers Paradise and "wants to live in the moment" and that "the window may have closed by the time she gets funds from Public Trustee." In response, Ms Li confirmed if a call was received in the morning requesting funds, then overnight money can be transferred to ST's account.
At hearing on the 1 September 2025, Ms Li in final submissions stated the Public Trustee have been managing funds built up over time; and requests for funds, once established for what purpose and amount, had been consistently honoured. Ms Li advised that Public Trustee have responded to ST's latest request for a holiday, getting and providing an estimate of costs for a trip to Surfer's Paradise of approximately $5000.00; funds for a burial plot of $3900.00, resulting in a reduction of invested funds to approximately $3500.00. Ms Li indicated that no communication has been received from ST since estimated costings had been provided. Ms Li requested the administration order be continued.
I find there is a need for an administration order given ST's impaired decision-making ability arising from her profound intellectual disability. There is a need for an administrator to budget and provide oversight, ensure payment of expenses and ensure ST does have savings to meet unexpected expenses. I note that ST has been calling on funds, and that funds of approximately $3000.00 have been provided to her in the last 12 months, in a responsive manner by the Public Trustee. ST is quite isolated and has no independent supports in her life, no services or family involvement. This factor when combined with ST's impaired decision-making capacity in respect of financial matters, makes her vulnerable to financial exploitation by others. Further, I find the request for $700.00 cash initially, without any details as to what purpose these funds were for, raises the question as to whether funds were intended for another purpose or for the benefit of another. I have insufficient evidence to make a finding on this, except to note that the Dr CX in her HPR also notes ST is very isolated and vulnerable to others taking advantage of her.
[2]
Based on all the evidence before me, I find that an order promotes ST's personal and social wellbeing. An administration order protects ST's financial wellbeing and reduces the likelihood of others taking financial advantage of her, particularly given her giving nature and being quite isolated. An order ensures ST's funds are being spent on her needs and wants, and not used for the benefit of others, except for any authorised gifting. It enables ST to save funds so they can be used for her own enjoyment and benefit.
I have considered the request to increasing gift but am not satisfied it is appropriate to do so, given ST's recent requests for funds and the limited savings this may leave her with. I therefore make no change to the gifting sum previously authorised.
[3]
Lastly, I was told ST wishes to make a will. At hearing, I made the observation that it would be prudent to obtain legal and medical advice as to ST's testamentary capacity, before incurring costs associated with drafting a will.
I find that an administrator's involvement and oversight ensures ST is receiving the benefit of her funds and her financial matters are being managed to promote her personal and social wellbeing. While I acknowledge, ST has a terminal illness and wants to experience different activities, I find this can be accommodated under administration.
After considering and applying s 8 principles of the Act and finding the criteria in s 51 of the Act is met, I continue the administration order.
[4]
The administration order for ST made on 1 June 2022 has been reviewed and continued until 31 August 2028.
Legislation Cited (2)
Administration Act 1995
Administration Act 1995
Cases Cited (1)
ST (Review of Administration) [2025] TASCAT 180 (17 September 2025)