Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: ZVQ v ZVR [2022] NSWCATAP 33 Hearing dates: 14 October 2021, and written submissions 30 November 2021 Date of orders: 08 February 2022 Decision date: 08 February 2022 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: Armstrong J, President A Britton, Deputy President Decision: The appeal proceedings 2021/217924 brought by ZVQ are dismissed under s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). Catchwords: APPEALS – designated external appeal – right of appeal from decision of Mental Health Review Tribunal – persons entitled to make external appeal to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal – whether external appeal competent Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) Health Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 2018 (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) Mental Health Regulation 2019 (NSW) NSW Trustee & Guardian Regulation 2017 (NSW) NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW) Protected Estates Act 1983 (NSW) (repealed) Cases Cited: Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 Vincentia MC Pharmacy Pty Ltd v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2020] FCAFC 163 Texts Cited: UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Category: Principal judgment Parties: ZVQ (Appellant) ZVR (First Respondent) NSW Trustee & Guardian (Second Respondent) FHC (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: C Goodhand (Appellant) Solicitors: Swaab, and later O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors (Appellant) File Number(s): 2021/217924 Publication restriction: Under s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, publication of the names of the parties, other than the NSW Trustee and Guardian, is prohibited. A reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture, or any other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person. Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Mental Health Review Tribunal of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Not applicable Citation: Not applicable Date of Decision: 1 July 2021 Before: D Letcher QC, C Tennant, J Learmont AM, Members REASONS FOR DECISION Overview 1. ZVR is a patient detained in a mental health facility under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) (the MH Act). Following an application made under s 46 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW) (the TG Act) by the mental health facility where ZVR is detained, the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) made a financial management order in respect of ZVR's estate. As a consequence of that order, ZVR's finances are now managed by the NSW Trustee and Guardian. 2. The purported appellant, ZVQ, is the sister of the patient ZVR, and is one of the patient's appointed guardians. ZVQ did not attend the hearing held by the MHRT on 1 July 2021 at which time the MHRT made the financial management order concerning ZVR's finances. 3. It is not in issue that the MHRT has power to make a financial management order under s 46 of the TG Act. However, ZVQ contends that because she was not informed of the hearing, as was required under the MH Act, she was denied procedural fairness by not having the opportunity to take part in that hearing and to make submissions on the issues for determination. ZVQ submits that, as a consequence, the financial management order made by the MHRT should be quashed under s 79 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act). 4. For the reasons that follow, we do not consider that this purported appeal is a competent appeal. We have decided therefore to dismiss the appeal proceedings under s 55(1)(b) of the NCAT Act on the basis that the purported appeal is misconceived. Notice of external appeal and submissions 1. ZVQ's notice of external appeal was lodged with NCAT on 29 July 2021. On 25 August 2021 at a directions hearing, the Appeal Panel (constituted by Principal Member A Suthers) made an order to prohibit publication of the names of the parties, other than the NSW Trustee and Guardian, under s 64(1)(a) of the NCAT Act. 2. Also on 25 August 2021, ZVQ was granted leave under s 45 of the NCAT Act to appear through a legal representative in these proceedings. 3. Prior to the hearing, ZVQ provided written submissions in support of her purported appeal, asserting that the decision at first instance resulted in: a denial of procedural fairness by the failure of the MHRT to notify ZVQ of the hearing. In addition, she contends that the MHRT failed to take into account a relevant consideration, and, took into account an irrelevant consideration. 4. The third respondent, FHC the mental health facility in which ZVR is a patient (the facility)) was the applicant in the MHRT proceedings. Neither the facility, nor its "authorised medical officer", made any written submissions in these appeal proceedings. However, the facility indicated that it "consented" to the external appeal being brought to NCAT, acknowledging that it had failed to notify ZVQ of the MHRT hearing. 5. At the hearing on 14 October 2021, the Appeal Panel conveyed its preliminary view that ZVQ did not have standing to bring the appeal and invited oral submissions on this issue. In addition, we invited ZVQ to provide us with written submissions on the competency issue by 21 October 2021. That date was extended, at the request of ZVQ, to 28 October 2021, and later to 30 November 2021. On 30 November 2021, ZVQ filed written submissions addressing the competency issue. 6. None of the persons named as respondents in the notice of external appeal, the facility, the NSW Trustee and Guardian and ZVR, appeared at the hearing on 14 October 2021. Nor did they provide submissions on the competency of this purported appeal. Relevant legislative framework 1. The decision which is the subject of this appeal was made under s 46 of the TG Act, which provides: 46 Other orders by MHRT (cf PE Act, s 19) (1) The MHRT may, on application, consider a patient's capability to manage his or her affairs and, if satisfied that the patient is not capable of managing his or her affairs, must order that the estate of the person be subject to management under this Act. (2) An application under this section may be made by any person who has, in the opinion of the MHRT, a sufficient interest in the matter. … 1. Part 4.3 of the TG Act relates to orders for the management of the affairs of patients. Such orders can be made and reviewed by the MHRT in various circumstances; see Division 1 ss 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the TG Act. Patient is defined in the MH Act to mean: "a person who is admitted to a mental health facility in accordance with this Act and who is in the facility following the person's admission…". 2. Under s 78(1)(h) of the MH Act, an authorised medical officer of a mental health facility must take "all reasonably practicable steps" to notify any "designated carer" of a patient if the patient has any matter before the MHRT. Under s 71(1)(a), the "designated carer" of a patient includes the guardian of the patient. 3. On 22 April 2021, NCAT made orders under the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) appointing ZVQ and the NSW Public Guardian as separate guardians of ZVR. NCAT gave ZVQ power to make decisions on behalf of ZVR in relation to legal services and "electronic content" about ZVR. NCAT gave the Public Guardian power to make decisions on behalf of ZVR in relation to access, accommodation, health care, services and restrictive practices and to consent to medical and dental treatment. 4. As a consequence of being a guardian for ZVR, ZVQ is deemed to be a "designated carer" for ZVR: s 71 of the MH Act. Division 2 of Ch 4 of the MH Act deals with notifications and information sharing, and includes obligations on an authorised medical officer of a mental health facility to provide information about the patient's medication, on request (s 73), as well as other types of information. Section 78 is included in Div 2 and is headed "Notification to designated carers and principal care providers or events affecting patients or detained persons". Under s 78(1)(h), the authorised medical officer must take all reasonably practicable steps to notify any designated carer if the patient has any matter before the MHRT. 5. Under s 78(2), the authorised medical officer must give the notice "as soon as practicable after becoming aware the event has occurred". Given that it was the facility itself which applied to the MHRT for a financial management order to be made in respect of ZVR, presumably the obligation under s 78(1)(h) on the authorised medical officer to take all reasonably practicable steps to notify ZVQ arose "as soon as practicable" on the making of the application to the MHRT. 6. Other than the notification provision in relation to designated carers in s 78(1)(h), there is no other statutory provision of which we are aware that imposes any further obligation, or otherwise deals with, any rights (however described) of a designated carer to participate in "the matter" before the MHRT. A designated carer would appear to have no statutory right to appear and be heard in the MHRT proceedings. We can find no statutory provision dealing with joinder of a person (such as a designated carer) as a party in the MHRT proceedings. 7. It is common ground that the notification contemplated by s 78(1)(h) of the MH Act was not given to ZVQ of the proceedings concerning ZVR in the MHRT and the hearing held on 1 July 2021. The authorised medical officer took no steps, and certainly not "all reasonably practicable steps", to notify ZVQ as required by s 78(1)(h) of the MH Act. 8. The circumstances in which an appeal can be made from a decision of the MHRT to NCAT are regulated by s 50 of the TG Act which provides: 50 Appeals to NCAT against estate management orders made by MHRT (cf PE Act, s 21A) (1) An appeal may be made by the following persons to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal against an order by the MHRT that the estate of a person be subject to management under this Act: (a) the person to whom the order relates, or (b) any other person who was a party to the proceedings in which the order was made. Note. An appeal under this section is an external appeal to the Tribunal for the purposes of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. (2) An appeal may be made: (a) as of right, on any question of law, or (b) by leave of the Tribunal, on any other grounds. 1. Consequently, where there is an entitlement to appeal under s 50 of the TG Act, the appeal is as of right on any question of law, and otherwise by leave of the Tribunal. 2. The MHRT is an external decision-maker because it is a decision-maker who is external to NCAT: see definition in NCAT Act, s 4. Consequently, appeals pursuant to s 50 of the TG Act are external appeals to NCAT because the decision is an appealable external decision over which NCAT has external appeal jurisdiction: see NCAT Act, s 31. Section 31(1) provides that NCAT has "external appeal jurisdiction" over a decision (or class of decisions) made by an external decision-maker if legislation provides that an appeal may be made to NCAT against any such decision (or class of decisions). 3. By s 26(6)(b) NCAT Act an appeal under s 50 of the TG Act is a "designated external appeal". Accordingly, NCAT is to be constituted as an Appeal Panel in determining such an appeal: see ss 27(1)(a) and 27(6)(b) of the NCAT Act. 4. An external appeal to NCAT is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of s 79 of the NCAT Act. This section provides: 79 Making and determination of external appeals (1) An external appeal may be made to the Tribunal by a person entitled to do so under enabling legislation on such a basis or grounds, or in such circumstances, as may be provided by that legislation. (2) In determining an external appeal, the Tribunal may: (a) in the case of enabling legislation that specifies the orders that may be made by the Tribunal on the appeal—make any of those orders, or (b) in any other case—make such orders as it considers appropriate in light of its decision on the appeal, including (but not limited to) orders that provide for any one or more of the following: (i) the appeal to be allowed or dismissed, (ii) the decision under appeal to be confirmed, affirmed or varied, (iii) the decision under appeal to be quashed or set aside, (iv) the decision under appeal to be quashed or set aside and for another decision to be substituted for it, (v) the whole or any part of the case to be reconsidered by the decision-maker whose decision is under appeal, either with or without further evidence, in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal. 1. As there is no specification in the TG Act (the enabling legislation) concerning the powers of an Appeal Panel of NCAT to determine the appeal, s 79(2)(b) of the NCAT Act defines the powers of the Appeal Panel in determining the external appeal. These powers will be available in circumstances where the appeal proceedings are brought by a person entitled to bring the appeal to NCAT. Was ZVQ a party to the MHRT proceedings? Submissions 1. ZVQ submits that she is a party to the MHRT proceedings in which the order made under s 46 of the TG Act was made committing the estate of ZVR to be subject to management under that Act, for the following reasons. 2. First, as the "principal care provider" of ZVR, she had a statutory right to be notified of, attend and make submissions in the MHRT proceedings. 3. Second, notwithstanding that she did not participate in the MHRT proceedings, she was, nonetheless, actually and/or constructively a party to those proceedings. 4. Third, the well-established principles of statutory construction, recently summarised by the Full Court of the Federal Court (Perry, Stewart JJ) in Vincentia MC Pharmacy Pty Ltd v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2020] FCAFC 163 at [46]-[48], support the conclusion that a principal care provider is a "party to the proceedings" for the purpose of s 50 of the TG Act. 5. Fourth, the principles stated in s 39 of the TG Act, are relevant to determining the purpose of s 50 and the meaning of the term "party to the proceedings". 6. Finally, s 38 of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) permits the Tribunal to have regard to extrinsic material, specifically, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention). The Convention confirms that properly construed the term "party to the proceedings" includes the principal care provider of the person the subject of an order made by the MHRT under s 46 of the TG Act. Consideration 1. As noted at [15] a consequence of being appointed guardian for ZVR, ZVQ is deemed to be a "designated carer": s 71 of the MH Act. Nothing would seem to turn on whether, as ZVQ contends, she is also the "principal care provider" for ZVR ("the individual who is primarily responsible for providing support or care to the person (other than wholly or substantially on a commercial basis)": s 72A(1)). This is because s 78(1)(h) of the MH Act, which ZVQ contends is central to the question of whether she is a "party to the proceedings", does not distinguish between designated carers and principal care providers. Each must be given notice if "the patient … has any matter before the Tribunal": s 78(1)(h) of the MH Act. The notification requirements contained in s 78 apply equally to designated carers and principal care providers. 2. We agree with ZVQ that the fact that she did not participate in the MHRT proceedings in which the order she now challenges was made is irrelevant to the question of whether she was a party to those proceedings. 3. In addition, we agree that in construing the expression "party to the proceedings" in s 50(1) of the TG Act, the text, context and "the purpose of the statute" are relevant: Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 at [78], referred to in Vincentia MC Pharmacy Pty Ltd v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2020] FCAFC 163 at [46]. 4. Further, we have considered whether the MH Act provides guidance about whether ZVQ is a "party to the proceedings" for the purpose of s 50 of the TG Act. TG Act Text 1. Neither the TG Act nor the regulation made under that Act, the NSW Trustee and Guardian Regulation 2017, contain a definition of the terms "party" or "party to the proceedings". The definition of "party" in the Interpretation Act is unhelpful in the present context, defining "party" to "mean an individual, a corporation and a body corporate or politic": s 21. Context 1. As is apparent from its terms, s 50(1) of the TG Act contemplates that the "person to whom the order relates" (s 50(1)(a)) is not the only party to the proceedings. This is because it gives a right to appeal that order to "any other person who was a party to the proceedings in which the order was made" (s 50(1)(b)) (emphasis added). 2. Section 50 of the TG Act is contained in Part 4.3 (Order for management of estates of mental health patients) of Chapter 4 (Management functions relating to persons incapable of managing their affairs). Section 51 of the TG Act is also contained in Part 4.3. It too contemplates that "the person to whom the order relates" is not the only party to the proceedings: 51 Notice of reasons for orders and appeal rights (cf PE Act, s 21B) (1) If the MHRT makes an order that the estate of a person be subject to management under this Act, the MHRT must, if requested to do so by any party to the proceedings (including the person to whom the order relates), provide the party with formal written reasons for the order as soon as practicable after making the order. (2) In providing those reasons, the MHRT must also advise the party concerned that an appeal may be made to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal against the order under this Part. (emphasis added) 1. Sections 50 and 51 undoubtedly contemplate that where an order is made under s 46, the person to whom the order relates is not the only party to the proceedings in which that order was made. However, neither provision identifies nor give guidance as to the identity of the other party or parties to those proceedings. Nor does any other provision contained in Chapter 4 of the TG Act. Legislative history 1. On 1 March 2009 the Protected Estates Act 1983 (NSW) was repealed and replaced by the TG Act. The explanatory note to the NSW Trustee and Guardian Bill 2009 (NSW) provides no guidance about the proper meaning of the term, "parties to the proceedings" in s 50(2) of the TG Act. Purpose 1. ZVQ correctly points out that any person exercising any function under Chapter 4 of the TG Act must observe the principles in s 39 of the TG Act: 39 General principles applicable to Chapter It is the duty of everyone exercising functions under this Chapter with respect to protected persons or patients to observe the following principles-- (a) the welfare and interests of such persons should be given paramount consideration, (b) the freedom of decision and freedom of action of such persons should be restricted as little as possible, (c) such persons should be encouraged, as far as possible, to live a normal life in the community, (d) the views of such persons in relation to the exercise of those functions should be taken into consideration, (e) the importance of preserving the family relationships and the cultural and linguistic environments of such persons should be recognised, (f) such persons should be encouraged, as far as possible, to be self-reliant in matters relating to their personal, domestic and financial affairs, (g) such persons should be protected from neglect, abuse and exploitation. 1. ZVQ does not explain the basis for her assertion that these principles support the meaning of the term "party to the proceedings" she urges us to adopt. Nor is it evident how these principles support that assertion. 2. Nor has ZVQ explained how the Convention is relevant to, or supports that assertion. MH Act Text 1. The MH Act does not define the terms "party" or "party to proceedings". Indeed, the word "party" does not appear in that Act or the regulation made under that Act, the Mental Health Regulation 2019 (NSW). Context 1. ZVQ submits that it is significant that an authorised medical officer of the facility was required to give her notice of the proceedings before the MHRT in which the decision to make the challenged order was made. Section 78 of the MH Act requires that a designated carer and principal care provider be given notice if an event listed in s 78 occurs. Those events include that "the patient or person has any matter before the Tribunal the patient or person has any matter before the Tribunal": 78 Notifications to designated carers and principal care providers of events affecting patients or detained persons (1) An authorised medical officer of a mental health facility must take all reasonably practicable steps to notify any designated carer and the principal care provider (if the principal care provider is not a designated carer) of a patient or person detained in the facility if any of the following events occurs— (a) the patient or person is absent from the facility without permission or fails to return at the end of a period of leave, (b) it is proposed to transfer the patient or person, or the patient or person is transferred, to another mental health facility or other facility, (c) the patient or person is discharged from the mental health facility, (d) the patient or person is re-classified as a voluntary patient, (e) it is proposed to apply to the Tribunal for an ECT inquiry under Part 2 or to ascertain whether the patient or person is capable of giving informed consent to electro convulsive therapy, (f) a surgical operation is performed on the patient or person under Part 3, (g) it is proposed to apply to the Secretary or the Tribunal for consent to a surgical operation or special medical treatment under Part 3, (h) the patient or person has any matter before the Tribunal. (2) The authorised medical officer must give the notice as soon as practicable after becoming aware that the event has occurred. (3) In the case of a proposed transfer, the notice must be given before the relevant order or arrangement is made, except in an emergency. (emphasis added) 1. Section 78(1)(h) was introduced by the Health Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 2018 (NSW) and commenced on 1 July 2018. It was one of several amendments made to the MH Act. Neither the Explanatory Note, the second reading speech nor the accompanying parliamentary debate refer to, or provide any guidance about, the reasons for introducing s 78(1)(h) of the MH Act. It may be that that provision related to the amendments to the MH Act introduced at the same time, which enabled the MHRT to "hear reviews and electro convulsive therapy inquiries in the absence of a patient or person in certain circumstances if the patient or person refuses to attend or is too unwell to attend". However, s 78(1)(h) requires that designated carers and principal care providers be given notice of "any matter before the Tribunal", not only hearings into reviews and electro convulsive therapy inquiries, conducted in the absence of the patient or person. This suggests that the amendment introducing s 78(1)(h) was not aimed solely at hearings into reviews and electro convulsive therapy inquiries, conducted in the absence of the patient or person. 2. The evident intent of s 78(1) of the MH Act is to ensure that designated carers and principal care providers receive notice of key events, relating to a patient or person while that person is admitted to a mental health facility. However, there would appear to be no contextual indicators within s 78(1)(h) or the provision as a whole, which support the submission advanced by ZVQ, that the term "party to the proceedings" in s 50 of the TG Act, should be read to include principal care providers (and/or designated carers). MHRT proceedings 1. We have also considered the statutory scheme and the procedure which govern proceedings conducted by the MHRT to determine whether they might assist in determining the proper meaning of the term "party to the proceedings" in s 50(1) of the TG Act. 2. Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the MH Act provides for the procedure in proceedings before the MHRT under that Act or any other Act: s 149. Proceedings before the MHRT are to be conducted with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition, as the requirements of the MH Act and the proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permit: s 151(1). The MHRT is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself of any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate and as the proper consideration of the matter before the Tribunal permits: s 151(2). Unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal the proceedings of the Tribunal are to be open to the public: ss 151(3), 151(4). 3. Headed "Rights of appearance and representation" s 154 states that a patient may be represented by an Australian legal practitioner or, with the approval of the Tribunal, by another person of his or her choice: s 154(3). Section 154 does not give a right of appearance or representation to any person, apart from the subject patient or person. 4. Unless otherwise determined by the Tribunal, a patient or person having any matter before the Tribunal is entitled to inspect or otherwise have access to any medical records in the possession of any person relating to the patient or person: s 156(1). The MH Act does not give any other person the right to inspect or have access to any medical records relating to the subject patient or person. 5. The statutory scheme and the procedures of the MHRT could not be said to indicate that a designated carer and/or a principal care provider, is "a party to the proceedings" in which a financial management order is made. Contrary to the submissions made by ZVQ, the MH Act does not give her the right to participate in, or be represented in, proceedings before the MHRT. Although family members and carers often participate in MHRT hearings, they do so as witnesses or as persons providing support to patients. The MHRT has no powers under its legislation to issue orders or directions to family members or carers as such. The powers of the MHRT are directed towards mentally ill or cognitively impaired patients and the powers of those who detain and/or provide mental health services to such patients in mental health facilities and in the community pursuant to orders made by the Tribunal. 6. Because of their social connection with patients, and because of the important roles they play in caring for patients, families and guardians have an obvious 'interest' in the proceedings, broadly defined. There is no indication in the legislation, however, that this familial or guardianship connection has crystallised into a legal interest separate from that of the patient. Purpose 1. The objects of the MH Act are : 3 Objects of Act The objects of this Act are— (a) to provide for the care and treatment of, and to promote the recovery of, persons who are mentally ill or mentally disordered, and (b) to facilitate the care and treatment of those persons through community care facilities, and (c) to facilitate the provision of hospital care for those persons on a voluntary basis where appropriate and, in a limited number of situations, on an involuntary basis, and (d) while protecting the civil rights of those persons, to give an opportunity for those persons to have access to appropriate care and, where necessary, to provide for treatment for their own protection or the protection of others, and (e) to facilitate the involvement of those persons, and persons caring for them, in decisions involving appropriate care and treatment. 1. While one of the objects of the MH Act is to facilitate the involvement of carers of persons who are "mentally ill or mentally disordered", of itself this could not be said to support the contention that a principal care provider or designated carer is a party to proceedings before the MHRT. Consideration 1. As stated above, ss 50 and 51 of the TG Act contemplate that where an order is made under s 46 of that Act, the person to whom the order relates is not the only party to the proceedings in which that order was made. While a powerful indicator that another person or persons are parties to those proceedings, in our view, having regard to the text, context and purpose of the TG Act and the MH Act, the term "party to the proceedings" cannot be read to include a designated carer or principal care provider. While it is not necessary to decide, it is arguable that the person who made the initiating application for an order under s 46 of the TG Act is a "party to the proceedings". 2. Whether the purported appeal commenced by ZVQ is competent depends on whether ZVQ was a party in the MHRT proceedings below, and thus a person who has standing to bring an external appeal against the MHRT's 1 July 2021 decision under s 79 of the NCAT Act. 3. As earlier noted, under s 79(1) of the NCAT Act, an external appeal may be made to NCAT by a person entitled to do so under enabling legislation on such a basis or grounds, or in such circumstances, as may be provided by that legislation. "Enabling legislation" is defined in s 4 of the NCAT Act as, relevantly, "legislation (other than this Act or any statutory rules made under this Act) that (a) provides for applications or appeals to be made to the Tribunal with respect to a specified matter or class of matters, or (b) otherwise enables the Tribunal to exercise functions with respect to a specified matter or class of matters". 4. Under s 50(1) of the TG Act, an external appeal to NCAT may be made by the person to whom the financial management order relates, or any other person who was a party to the proceedings in which that order was made. We do not consider that ZVQ can properly be characterised as a party to the MHRT proceedings below for the purposes of NCAT external appeal rights under s 50(1) of the TG Act. ZVQ was not a party in the MHRT proceedings. We further note that there is nothing to suggest that she had a statutory right to party status at the MHRT; all she had was a right to be informed of the matter before the MHRT. While regrettable that the authorised medical officer of the facility failed as required by the MH Act to notify ZVQ of the MHRT proceedings, that failure does not provide a basis on which ZVQ has standing to bring an external appeal to NCAT. 5. It is noted that ZVQ is appointed guardian to her sister ZVR in relation to legal services. However, ZVQ does not contend that she brought the external appeal to NCAT on behalf of her sister (as her sister's guardian). No such contention was made at any stage during these appeal proceedings, nor is there anything in the written material before us which suggests that ZVQ intended to bring the appeal on her sister's behalf. We note that ZVQ is legally represented in these appeal proceedings, and has been in receipt of legal advice both as to the institution and continuation of the appeal proceedings. Conclusion 1. We consider that these appeal proceedings should be dismissed under s 55(1)(b) of the NCAT Act on the basis that they are misconceived. The purported appeal brought by ZVQ is not competent. ZVQ is not a person to whom the financial management order made by the MHRT relates, nor was she a party to the MHRT proceedings in which the financial management order was made. She therefore has no entitlement (or standing) to bring an appeal to NCAT under s 50 of the TG Act and relevant provisions of the NCAT Act. Orders 1. The appeal proceedings 2021/217924 brought by ZVQ are dismissed under s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar Amendments 11 February 2022 - Pursuant to s63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the following amendments were made: – reflecting the order made under s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the name of the third respondent is replaced by the pseudonym "FHC" in the coversheet – the abbreviated name of the third respondent is replaced by "the facility" in paragraphs [8], [10], [16], [44], [58] – the words "publication of" are inserted after the word "prohibit" in line 3 of paragraph [5] DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 11 February 2022