VZU (Guardianship) [2025] VCAT 732

1. The Public Advocate, Office of the Public Advocate, 1/204 Lygon Street, CARLTON, VIC 3053, is appointed guardian for VZU.
2. The guardian has power to make decisions about these personal matters:

- where VZU lives; and

- the support services that are provided to VZU.

1. Guardians must comply with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 which outlines their powers and duties.

1. The administration order dated 21 October 2024 is revoked (ended).
2. State Trustees Limited, 1 McNab Avenue, FOOTSCRAY, VIC 3011, is appointed administrator for VZU.
3. State Trustees Limited has power to make decisions about all financial matters.
4. The administrator has powers given under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 section:

1. Administrators must comply with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, which outlines their powers and duties.
2. The administrator must complete and send a Financial Statement to VCAT for approval at the time the order is due for reassessment, or when VCAT requests it.

VCAT makes this order because it is satisfied that:

- due to a disability, VZU does not have capacity to make decisions about the personal and financial matters listed in this order,

- VZU needs a guardian and an administrator, considering the factors set out in section 31 of the Act, including their will and preferences (what's important to them), and

- this guardianship order and the administration order will promote the personal and social wellbeing of VZU.

1. This order applies until VCAT makes another order.
2. Anyone can apply for VCAT to reassess this order at any time.
3. VCAT is due to reassess this guardianship order by 30/09/2026.

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.

1. VCAT is due to reassess this administration order by 30 September 2028.

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.

1. If the Public Advocate or State Trustees Limited or VZU changes contact details (email, phone or address),the Public Advocate or State Trustees Limited must immediately inform VCAT in writing.

1. State Trustees Limited is entitled to payment (including GST) from the funds of VZU as follows:

A commission on gross income received, not exceeding:

- 3.3 per cent of Centrelink or Department of Veterans' Affairs pensions, and

- 6.6 per cent of all other income received

AND

A commission on assets of the estate.

If an asset is sold or brought in during the administration, for the value of the asset the commission must not exceed:

- 3.3 per cent of any amount up to $500,000 and

- 1.5 per cent of the amount (if any) between $500,000 and $1 million, and

- 0.55 per cent of the amount (if any) between $1 million and $3 million, and

- 0.44 per cent of the amount (if any) in excess of $3 million.

For any other asset, the commission must not exceed 2.2 per cent of the asset's value immediately before the end of the administration. This commission only applies if the administrator has not otherwise received reasonable payment for its work, and if VCAT approved it by order. No order is needed if the administration ends at the death of the represented person.

For all commissions on income and assets:

- the value of an asset is its gross value, and

- the method of calculating value and the definition of gross value are as set out in the scale of charges published in the Victoria Government Gazette.

AND

A fee not exceeding 0.88 per cent per year on the capital sum invested in any State Trustees Limited common fund.

If State Trustees Limited provides any other estate-related services to the estate, it is entitled to payment. The payment rate must not exceed the amount in the scale of charges published in the Victoria Government Gazette.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is providing these 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.**

1. In these written reasons for decision, I refer to the person who is the subject of the application as VZU. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has given the person that anonymised name to protect their identity and the confidentiality of their personal information.
2. For the same reason, to protect the identity of the represented person, VCAT has allocated initials to describe the members of VZU's immediate family who attended the hearing:
   • OBW - son who has been living with VZU .
   • EQQ - daughter of VZU and one of the administrators of VZU.
   • JER - son of VZU and the other administrator of VZU.
   • SLM - domestic partner of OBW who lives with OBW and has been living with VZU.
   • CKA - wife of JER.

Wherever possible, for the sake of easier reading, I shall refer to individuals by their relationship with the represented person.

1. By way of background, VZU, as the principal, on 21 September 2000, appointed OBW, EQQ, and JER jointly and severally as his attorneys with immediate effect.
2. However, since May 2024, VCAT has dealt with a number of applications relating to VZU. What has been apparent throughout these matters has been the significant conflict between OBW on the one hand and EQQ and JER on the other hand.
3. On 24 June 2024, VCAT heard applications for a guardianship order and for an administration order under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) (the GA Act) and applications for compensation and for orders about an enduring power of attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act 2014 (the POA Act). Included in these applications was an application by OBW for appointment as guardian for VZU and an application by EQQ and JER for orders about losses they alleged were caused to the principal's estate by OBW.
4. At the hearing on 24 June 2024, on the medical evidence, VCAT was satisfied that VZU did not have decision-making capacity in relation to

personal matters, financial and property affairs or the making of an enduring power of attorney.

VCAT also found on the evidence then before it, that the appointment of a guardian and administrator for VZU may be required and that there were sufficient concerns about financial actions taken by OBW to justify the suspension of OBW's appointment as attorney for VZU in relation to financial matters.

Orders were made by VCAT on 24 June 2024 suspending the appointment of OBW as attorney for VZU in relation to financial matters until further order and that the appointments of EQQ and JER as attorneys, jointly and severally, for VZU in relation to financial matters remained in effect. Directions were made for the filing and service of further documents and submissions by OBW, EQQ, and JER and for the fixing of a further hearing of the application for appointment of guardian and administrator and for compensation.

On 21 October 2024, VCAT made further orders which included, among others, that the application for appointment of a guardian was dismissed, the application for compensation under the POA Act was dismissed and that EQQ and JER were appointed, jointly and severally, as administrators for VZU with power to make decisions about all financial matters, with the administration order being due for reassessment by 31 December 2027.

In making these orders, VCAT was satisfied that proposed consent orders in the above terms signed by or on behalf of OBW, EQQ and JER had been provided, that VZU needed an administrator and that the administration order would promote the personal and social wellbeing of VZU.

VZU was admitted to the Bendigo Hospital on 3 December 2024 and was on inpatient rehabilitation from 6 December 2024. He had presented to hospital after a fall at home which had resulted in a head strike and pelvic fracture. He had been diagnosed with mixed Alzheimer's and vascular dementia in November 2023.

On 22 January 2025, EQQ applied for the appointment of JER and EQQ as joint guardians of VZU. In making the guardianship application, it was noted that EQQ was the eldest of the three children of VZU and that her reasons for making the application were that it was in accordance with instructions of VZU's Bendigo Health treatment team and that VZU required care 24 hours a day on seven days a week (24/7). EQQ noted that VZU is 100 years old, remained in Bendigo Hospital and had dementia and other health concerns resulting in cognitive, hearing and mobility impairments and frequent dizziness.

On 31 January 2025, OBW applied to be appointed guardian of VZU, for the revocation and reassessment of the administration order dated 21 October 2024, and for the appointment of either OBW or an independent entity as administrator.

In making the guardianship application, OBW noted that he was the elder son and had been primary carer since March 2022. Among other matters, OBW's reasons for making the application included that he was solely dedicated to VZU enjoying doing what he loves and wishes by returning to, and continuing to live at, his own property doing what he wants to do.

OBW further stated in his guardianship application that upon his return to Australia in March 2022 after being away for four years working overseas, he had found VZU in poor physical condition, his ten-acre property to be very run down, and the house in a poor state of repair. OBW regarded VZU as needing urgent assistance and therefore OBW did everything for and on behalf of VZU to enable VZU to continue his hectic lifestyle. OBW maintained that VZU's health then improved before age started setting in.

To achieve such favourable outcomes, OBW had divided his care into four projects which, in order of priority, were VZU's personal wellbeing by setting up programs for diet, health and fitness, providing a safe environment for VZU by undertaking improvements, maintenance and repair projects, accessing assistance for VZU through aged care, and assisting VZU's social life and future plans including finances to achieve what VZU wanted.

In making the administration application, OBW asserted that EQQ and JER had, among other concerns, mismanaged finances resulting in crucial delays in making essential payments and generally being unwilling to make things happen in accordance with VZU's expectations.

There was a hearing on 17 March 2025 and on 10 April 2025 where I was the presiding member. By the time of the hearing, VZU had received a period of assessment and rehabilitation and was considered as stable and ready for discharge.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my decision, which is now set out in the attached orders and below reasons for my decision.

I have appointed the Public Advocate as guardian for VZU with power to make decisions for VZU about where he lives and the provision of services.

I have revoked the administration order appointing EQQ and JER and I have appointed State Trustees Limited with power to make decisions about all financial matters.

1. Prior to the hearing, I had received a number of reports.
2. Dr Chau provided a report dated 30 January 2025. She had been VZU's medical practitioner since his admission to the inpatient geriatric ward on 6 December 2024. Attached to her report was a report of Mr James Wei, geriatrician, dated 13 November 2023 who had consulted with VZU upon referral from Dr Griffin, VZU's regular general practitioner.

Dr Chau confirmed that the assessments completed by Bendigo Health's geriatric multidisciplinary team supported Mr Wei's diagnosis of mixed dementia of mild to moderate severity which is progressive. VZU, had been having postural hypotension which is low blood pressure when standing up from a sitting or lying position and he had experienced symptoms arising from this including dizziness which meant that he required assistance with showering from nursing staff. His postural hypotension was due to frailty, de-conditioning and low oral intake as he required encouragement to eat and drink. VZU had continued to have symptoms despite medication.

VZU also has chronic kidney disease due to age and a history of high blood pressure. He was having weekly injections to boost his red cell count but became tired easily due to frailty and anaemia. He was also receiving physiotherapy. While his mobility at the time of the report was independent with bed use and from lying to sitting, supervision was recommended for sitting to standing with his 4-wheel-walker (4WW). He was able to walk short distances such as from his bed to the ensuite bathroom on the hospital ward using his 4WW with supervision, but it was recommended that he use a wheelchair for which he required assistance for longer distances due to becoming tired easily and due to his ongoing symptomatic postural hypotension. His hearing difficulties were also noted.

In relation to VZU's decision-making capacity about lifestyle decisions, Dr Chau found after thorough assessment that he was not fully able to understand the information relevant to these decisions which, given the nature of family dynamics and conflict, is a complex situation. In addition, Dr Chau reported that VZU is not able to retain new information that is necessary to make such decisions. Accordingly, his capacity to make lifestyle decisions is impaired and includes an inability to fully accept the risk of living in his home in the context of existing and anticipated ongoing family conflict.

Dr Chau noted that VZU consistently expressed a wish to return to live in his own home and he is accepting of any support that could be provided to him, including from all his children. However, according to Dr Chau, due to the conflict between his children, it is unclear whether VZU can be supported to continue to live at home. By way of example, Dr Chau further noted that VZU's children required hospital staff to negotiate a roster for visiting times for VZU. There is conflict between them with regards to where he is best supported, that is, at home or a residential aged care facility. A family meeting was conducted earlier in January 2025 in an attempt to resolve the conflict with regards to VZU's accommodation and supports, but an outcome could not be established. Additionally, Dr Chau noted that VZU and his children required extensive social worker presence and support during the hospital stay.

Also provided was a Bendigo Health Summary of Assessment and recommendations from the earlier family meeting referred to by Dr Chau. It

confirmed that the attendees had included Dr Chau, Ms Munns, Ms Anketell, VZU, OBW, EQQ, and JER.

The summary noted that as discussed prior to the family meeting, it was important for all of OBW, EQQ and JER to have an equal opportunity to voice their preferences about VZU's accommodation after discharge from hospital. The treating rehabilitation team had recommended that VZU required 24/7 care and support, inclusive of active overnight support, and he remained a high falls' risk which would follow him wherever he resided.

At the family meeting, after considering the treatment recommendations, VZU's preference was to return home. OBW's was also for VZU to return home and EQQ and JER both voiced a preference for VZU to go into residential aged care. As such, the necessity for a VCAT application for guardianship was noted given no consensus could be reached. The summary also recorded that it was vitally important that all of OBW, EQQ and JER continue to have the ability to visit VZU and spend quality time together. It was strongly encouraged that OBW, EQQ and JER make their best efforts to coordinate visiting.

Ms Anketell also provided a report dated 5 March 2025. In relation to VZU's ongoing falls' risk, she recorded that he now had a sensor mat in place due to impulsiveness as he did not recall the need to request assistance to ambulate, for example to the toilet, despite being reminded on a daily basis by nursing staff. VZU's bilateral hearing loss is significant and although he wears bilateral hearing aids, he does so with limited effect, but he has had some success with the use of a hearing amplifier while in hospital.

In relation to the will and preferences of VZU, under the delegation of Ms Anketell, a healthcare worker at Bendigo Health helped VZU to complete a 'what is important to you' worksheet on 11 February 2025 which was filed before the first hearing day.

In the worksheet, as to what is important to VZU about his accommodation, it was said by him that he likes to live at his home in the country. As to what was important to VZU for his daily living, he stated that he did not need help and support on a daily basis. He has a pet cat which he cares for at his property which is important to him. The help and support that he currently uses is through each of OBW who lives with him most of the time, EQQ when she comes down to visit him, and JER who lives a block away from him. The most important people in his life are his family, OBW, JER and EQQ. He does not need anyone to help him to get medical care, but he has OBW if necessary. VZU wants to spend money on trips and he plans to go to England next year and stay where he lives when he is not travelling. Regarding his finances he would only like support from his family.

Ms Anketell noted the earlier filing of the worksheet. However, in her report, she notes that whilst VZU can voice his wish to return home, he has

been unable to demonstrate the ability to recall and therefore consider the past and current family conflict and therefore the impact which this has on the risks and benefits of returning home. She also notes that VZU is unable to clearly articulate the community services he would require on discharge. He is unable to state how many hours of support he is likely to require, under-reporting his current care he needs and believing himself to be more independent than evidenced in hospital. VZU also denies the need for 24/7 care, despite education provided on multiple occasions by the multi-disciplinary team.

Finally, in her report, Ms Anketell also records that as a means of exploring least restrictive options, the multidisciplinary treating team held the family meeting with the purpose of providing all parties with the same information about VZU's ongoing care needs and to attempt to gain consensus with regards to accommodation. As set out earlier, despite the multidisciplinary treating team providing the recommendation of VZU requiring 24/7 active care and that he no longer had capacity to make decisions pertaining to accommodation and services and therefore referred to OBW, EQQ and JER to consider the most suitable environment for VZU to live in after hospitalisation, consensus was unable to be reached.

According to Ms Anketell's report, all of the children advised that since the October 2024 VCAT hearing, they had all been making their own attempts to work together to co-ordinate VZU's care. While there were differing opinions as to the reasons why this had not been successful, it remained clear that effective communication between all children is unsustainable and unsafe for all parties. She also noted that there have been interim intervention orders applied for and granted between family members and further hearings were scheduled. Ms Anketell regarded these separate legal proceedings as likely to continue to impact the ability for the children to work together to make decisions about VZU's future care and this made the VCAT application for formal appointment of a guardian the only remaining option.

Over time, there has been considerable material filed by or on behalf of the children and this confirms the significant disagreement between them.

1. At the hearing on 17 March 2025, VZU gave evidence from the Inpatient Rehabilitation Unit at Bendigo Hospital. In attendance with VZU from the same location, and who also gave some evidence, were Dr Jillian Chau, the treating geriatrician, Teagan Anketell, senior social worker, and Leanne Munns, nursing manager. Evidence was also given by OBW, EQQ, and JER. SLM attended supporting OBW and CKA attended supporting JER.
2. On the second day of the hearing, on 10 April 2025, VZU again attended from the Inpatient Rehabilitation Unit in company with Ms Anketell and

gave some evidence. SLM and CKA again attended with the primary evidence being given by each of OBW, EQQ and JER.

1. A person (including VCAT) exercising powers functions and duties under the GA Act must have regard to the principles set out in section 8 of the GA Act. In summary, they are:
   1. a person with a disability should be given practicable and appropriate support to make and participate in decisions, express their will and preferences and develop their decision-making capacity;
   2. the will and preferences of a person with a disability should direct decisions made for the person, as far as practicable; and
   3. powers, functions and duties must be used in the way which is the least restrictive of the ability of the person with a disability to decide and act as is possible in the circumstances.
2. Section 9 of the GA Act sets out further principles which apply to a person making a decision 'for' a represented person. These apply to a guardian, administrator, supportive guardian or supportive administrator who is making a decision for a represented person. They would also apply to VCAT when it is advising an appointed decision-maker about their powers and duties.

1. At the hearing on 17 March 2025, Dr Chau primarily gave evidence with some contribution from Ms Anketell and Ms Munns. Dr Chau confirmed the contents of her report. She noted that VZU's fracture had not required surgical management, but his rehabilitation had been completed and his current level of functioning, given his age and disabilities, was at optimum level. However, he was failing physically and was cognitively vulnerable and could easily trip into delirium. She confirmed that VZU could express what he wanted to do at a particular time, but he would not then recall in several minutes' time what he had said.
2. Dr Chau regarded VZU as now at a good weight, but he still needed 24/7 care, and the issue remained where that care was to be provided. In line with her report, Dr Chau regarded his dementia and general disability level to be progressively deteriorating. While he remains continent, he needs aids and assistance. Even though he uses the 4WW, someone really needs to be with him while he does so. He cannot move more than about 20 metres at a time and often requires pushing in a wheelchair instead. He needs to get up quite frequently at night to go to the toilet and, as earlier noted, he requires a sensor pad. This means that when he starts to move to get up out of bed, an alarm is triggered and currently a nurse then assists him. He still needs encouragement to eat and constant support to remain safe. He continues to have high blood pressure and suffers, on occasions, with dizziness. He

requires a regular general practitioner and his symptoms need to be constantly monitored.

Hospital staff are very aware of the irreconcilable differences between OBW and SLM on the one hand and EQQ, JER and CKA on the other hand. They tried extremely hard to institute and establish a visitors' roster but without success.

I spoke with VZU. While he presents well in all the circumstances, his hearing difficulties are readily apparent, and he has no insight into his medical condition and the resulting substantial limitations. He maintained that he looked after himself with little to no assistance and that he will be able to continue to do so. He confirmed that he wants to return home and remain there and noted that OBW lives there with him. He is happy for all his family to be involved. However, it seemed apparent that he had no awareness of the irreconcilable differences between his children and the gravity of them.

At the second hearing on 10 April 2025, evidence was given by each of OBW, EQQ, and JER. There was no doubt that OBW remained firm in his desire and view that VZU return home while EQQ and JER remained equally firm that residential aged care is the only option.

OBW remained extremely critical of EQQ and JER. JER and EQQ remained extremely critical of OBW. The separate proceedings that remained ongoing pertaining to mutual intervention orders are between OBW and CKA.

OBW gave evidence about his role as a primary carer and how he and SLM could continue to look after VZU in the future. OBW gave evidence about the significant nursing experience and qualifications of SLM and how they planned to be carers together for VZU on a 24/7 basis in conjunction with periodic respite and regular external services which included ongoing assistance with showering and cleaning, maximising the Home Care Package 4 to which VZU was entitled, consultations with Dr Griffin who remained VZU's general practitioner, and use of a sensor pad at the house and of additional equipment recommended by an occupational therapist. He also gave evidence about caring for VZU's cat at VZU's property and about the extensive maintenance, repair and make safe works he has undertaken there.

EQQ and JER gave evidence about their role as administrators to date including the steps taken to reduce VZU's expenditure, increase available funds, and set realistic budgets. As to the last item, EQQ and JER are of the opinion that VZU's house will need to be sold as there are insufficient funds available otherwise to afford the additional care and equipment that they believe is required for the 24/7 care that VZU needs if he was to return home. Further, their evidence is that it will be necessary to sell VZU's property to enter the appropriate residential aged care.

To direct questioning, OBW denied that his view that VZU should return home is based on any consideration that he wants to remain at the property with SLM. His evidence is that if VZU's property was sold, OBW and SLM would have a property to which they could move.

Towards the conclusion of evidence, VZU stated that he expects OBW to continue to stay at his property and remain there as it is only fair given that EQQ and JER have their own properties. VZU wants to return home with OBW living there.

1. When appointing a guardian, VCAT must apply the principles in section 8 of the GA Act, including that VZU's will and preferences should direct the decision 'as far as practicable'.
2. VZU's will and preferences are relevant also when VCAT decides whether a person needs a guardian (section 31 of the GA Act) and whether a proposed guardian is a suitable person to be appointed (section 32(3)(a) of the GA Act).
3. I am satisfied that VZU wants to return home. Despite finding that, and noting VZU's expectation that OBW would still be living there, I also find that he would want each of his children being collaboratively involved in the decision-making process together.

1. Section 30(2)(a) of the Act says VCAT may only appoint a guardian for a person if satisfied that because of the person's disability, the person does not have decision-making capacity in relation to the personal matters which are the subject of the application.
2. Based on the medical and Bendigo Health reports, and the evidence given by the makers of the reports, and having heard the evidence from VZU himself, I am satisfied that VZU now lacks the capacity to make decisions about where he lives and the provision of services that he requires, including their nature and extent.

Is a supporting guardianship order appropriate?

1. Appointing a supportive guardian would be less restrictive than appointing a guardian. A less restrictive order would be consistent with the principles in section 8 of the GA Act.
2. VCAT has power to appoint a supportive guardian whenever an application is made for appointment of a guardian, as provided by section 87 of the GA Act.

However, to appoint a supportive guardian for a person, the person must consent and must have decision-making capacity when practicable and appropriate support is provided, as set out in section 87 (2) of the GA Act.

In the present case, this less restrictive alternative was not available as the medical evidence was very clear that VZU lacked decision making capacity because of his diagnosis of dementia.

Accordingly, that less restrictive alternative is not available in this case.

1. Section 30(2)(b) of the GA Act says VCAT may only appoint a guardian for a person if satisfied that the person needs a guardian.
2. Section 31 of the GA Act sets out a number of matters VCAT must consider in determining whether a person needs a guardian. VCAT must consider the person's will and preferences (as far as they can be ascertained) and whether decisions about the relevant personal matters could be more suitably made informally or could reasonably be made by mediation, negotiation or some similar method. VCAT must also consider the wishes of any primary carer, relative or other person with a direct interest in the application and must also consider the desirability of preserving existing relationships important to the person with a disability.
3. In this case, VZU needs a guardian because he has never appointed a decision maker for personal decisions, such as where he lives and the services that he needs to be provided.
4. The medical evidence clearly supports the view that due to dementia, VZU is unaware of his cognitive and physical decline and is unable to retain information to make a decision about where he lives . He is unaware of the extent of his care needs and the lack of available care in his community. These factors provide compelling evidence that VZU is unable to make decisions about where he lives and the services he needs to be provided
5. I have considered VZU's will and preferences - that is that he wants to return home and that he wants all his children involved in his decision-making.
6. Although it is not my role to make a decision whether or not VZU can live at home and what services he is to be provided and how they are to be provided, I am very aware of the extremely serious disagreements between VZU's children, which are irreconcilable and so significant that it is not appropriate that they or any one of them or combination of them be appointed as decision makers as they could not work together.
7. I have also considered possible informal means of making decisions about personal matters for VZU and the wishes of his family and, in this case, I have formed the view that less formal decision-making is not practicable. That is because of the clear disagreement between the children regarding where VZU should live after he is discharged from hospital and what

services should be provided and how they should be provided. The level of animosity between the children is of such a personal nature that it could directly impact on the decisions made and there is a risk of serious harm to VZU if any of the children were appointed guardians.

Appointing a guardian will not interfere with the relationships that are important to VZU and is more likely to enhance the prospect of VZU receiving more visits from all his children and friends. I am not making an appointment which will allow a guardian to restrict access to VZU.

Taking all this into account, I am satisfied that VZU needs a guardian to make decisions about where he lives and the provision of services.

1. Section 30(2)(c) says VCAT may only appoint a guardian for a person if satisfied that the guardianship order will promote the person's personal and social wellbeing. I am satisfied in this case that the order will do so because a guardian will be able to ensure that VZU receives appropriate care and support and that he will be able to live in an environment in which he is safe.

1. In this case, I was satisfied (as required by section 33 of the GA Act) that no person other than the Public Advocate, as an independent guardian, fulfils the requirements of section 32 for appointment as guardian for VZU.
2. The referral to the Public Advocate, under my order, includes contact details for each of OBW, EQQ, and JER. This will enable the Public Advocate to make all enquiries considered necessary including of all relevant Bendigo Health staff before making decisions.

1. The order says that the guardian can make decisions about where VZU lives.
2. The GA Act gives guidance for the guardian about how to exercise their decision-making power. The principles in section 8 and section 9 of the GA Act apply to those decisions.
3. Section 9 of the GA Act sets out the principles applying when a decision is made for a represented person. It says the guardian 'should give all practicable and appropriate effect to the represented person's will and preferences'. It also says that VZU's will and preferences 'should only be overridden if it is necessary to do so to prevent serious harm' to him.

1. This order will be reassessed before 30 September 2026, as required by the GA Act.

VZU or anyone else can apply for the reassessment sooner if necessary.

1. Section 30(2)(a) of the GA Act says VCAT may only appoint (or reappoint) an administrator for a person if satisfied that because of the person's disability, the person does not have decision-making capacity in relation to the financial matters which are the subject of the application.
2. At the time of the original administration order in October 2024, VCAT had the geriatrician report of Mr James Wei dated 13 November 2023 confirming the dementia syndrome of VZU and the report of Dr Griffin confirming that because of the dementia, poor insight into his financial status and inability to retain information, VZU lacked decision making capacity about financial matters.
3. I note that none of the children disputed that VZU lacked decision-making capacity.
4. Based on these reports, the subsequent report of Dr Chau, the progressive nature of the disability, and my own observations at the hearing, I was comfortably satisfied that VZU continues to lack the capacity to make decisions about the management of all of his estate.

Is a supportive administration order appropriate?

1. Appointing a supportive administrator would be less restrictive than appointing an administrator. A less restrictive order would be consistent with the principles in section 8 of the GA Act.
2. VCAT has power to appoint a supportive administrator whenever an application is made for appointment of an administrator, as provided by section 87 of the GA Act.
3. However, to appoint a supportive administrator for a person, the person must consent and must have decision-making capacity when practicable and appropriate support is provided, as set out in section 87(2) of the GA Act.
4. In the present case, this less restrictive alternative was not available because there was no likelihood VZU would have decision-making capacity even when supported.
5. Accordingly, that less restrictive alternative is not available in this case.

1. Section 30(2)(b) of the GA Act says VCAT may only appoint an administrator for a person if satisfied that the person needs an administrator.
2. Section 31 of the GA Act sets out a number of matters VCAT must consider in determining whether a person needs an administrator. VCAT must consider the person's will and preferences (as far as they can be

ascertained) and whether decisions about the relevant financial matters could be more suitably made informally or could reasonably be made by mediation, negotiation or some similar method. VCAT must also consider the wishes of any primary carer, relative or other person with a direct interest in the application and must also consider the desirability of preserving existing relationships important to the person with a disability.

In this case VZU needs an administrator because his memory, understanding and lack of insight are all affected by his disability. The effect is and remains that he is unable to make decisions about how to manage his income and expenses and such matters are not able to be managed informally.

Each of VZU's children were of the view that their father needs an administrator.

Taking all this into account, I was satisfied that VZU needs an administrator and that such an appointment would promote his personal and social wellbeing as required by section 30 (2) of the GA Act.

1. EQQ and JER were content to be reappointed and OBW sought to replace them.
2. On the available evidence, EQQ and JER had complied with the terms of the order under which they had been appointed as administrators. They had complied with section 55 of the GA Act and had demonstrated a good understanding of the obligations on them as administrators under the GA Act.
3. I have considered VZU's will and preferences - that is that he wants his finances looked after by his family being his three children. I am unable to give effect to those wishes because, despite my views about the role of EQQ and JER to date in relation to the existing administration order, my awareness of the extremely serious disagreements between VZU's children, which are irreconcilable and so significant that it is not appropriate that they or any one of them or combination of them be appointed as decision makers as they could not work together. The level and nature of the animosity between the children is and remains of such a personal nature that it could directly impact on the decisions made and there is a risk of serious harm to VZU if any of the children were appointed administrators on an ongoing basis.
4. However, having reiterated these concerns, appointing an administrator will not interfere with the relationships that are important to VZU and is more likely, prospectively, to enhance them.
5. I am satisfied (as required by section 33 of the GA Act) that no person other than State Trustees Limited, as an independent administrator, fulfils the requirements of section 32 to be the administrator of VZU.

The administration order of 21 October 2024 has therefore been revoked and State Trustees Limited appointed as administrator. The referral to State Trustees under my orders, includes contact details for each of OBW, EQQ, and JER. This will enable State Trustees to make all enquiries considered necessary including of all relevant Bendigo Health staff before making decisions and, in particular, to deal with EQQ and JER and to liaise with them as necessary for the handover of all relevant documents and provision of the current financial details and information relating to VZU.

1. Section 30(2)(c) says VCAT may only appoint an administrator for a person if satisfied that the administration order will promote the person's personal and social wellbeing. I am satisfied in this case that the order will do so and, in particular, having regard to all the circumstances, State Trustees Limited will be able to work and operate well with the Public Advocate as the guardian to ensure that VZU will be properly protected.

1. The order says that the administrator can make decisions about all financial matters and exercise all the relevant powers in the GA Act (sections 46 and 52). That is because VZU owns property, receives income and has expenses which must be paid.
2. The GA Act gives guidance for the administrator about how to exercise their financial decision-making power. The principles in section 8 and section 9 of the GA Act apply to those decisions.
3. Section 9 of the GA Act sets out the principles applying when a decision is made for a represented person. It says the administrator 'should give all practicable and appropriate effect to the represented person's will and preferences'. It also says that VZU's will and preferences 'should only be overridden if it is necessary to do so to prevent serious harm' to him.
4. Section 55 sets out further requirements of the administrator. Some of the requirements most relevant in this case are that the administrator must act as an advocate for the represented person, must act in such a way as to protect him from neglect, abuse or exploitation and must avoid any conflict of interest.

1. This order will be reassessed before 30 September 2028, as required by the GA Act. VZU or anyone else can apply for the reassessment to be sooner if that is necessary.