Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AEB v Public Guardian [2012] NSWADT 126 Hearing dates: 18 November 2011 Decision date: 29 June 2012 Before: Mr J Millar, Judicial Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed Catchwords: Guardianship - accommodation decision Legislation Cited: Guardianship Act 1987 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Category: Principal judgment Parties: AEB (Applicant) Public Guardian (Respondent) Representation: Ms L Fisher (Applicant) C Phang for Public Guardian (Respondent) File Number(s): 113167 Publication restriction: Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies. REasons for decision 1General Division (J Millar, Judicial Member): The General Division of the Tribunal presently has before it an Application filed 28 June 2011 for review of a decision made by the Public Guardian on 28 February 2011, which was affirmed on 4 May 2011 following an internal review, being a decision whereby the Public Guardian consented to AEB being given permanent placement at Montrose Hostel at Balmain. HISTORY 2On 5 January 2010 the Guardianship Tribunal made an order that AEB be placed under guardianship and that his Guardian be the Public Guardian to have the function of determining where AEB may reside. 3On 30 January 2011 the original Guardianship Order was varied by being continued for a further period of two years and by conferring upon the Public Guardian the functions of determining AEB's accommodation, health care, medical and dental treatment and access to services. 4On 28 February 2011 the Public Guardian gave consent to AEB being given a permanent placement at Montrose Hostel at Balmain. The reasons for this decision are set out in document B2 of the section 58 documents provided to the Tribunal. 5Following review of the decision on 4 May 2011, when the decision was affirmed, AEB applied to review of the decision to the Tribunal. APPLICANT'S CASE 6The Tribunal spoke to AEB by telephone during the hearing. It was not easy to maintain easy communication with AEB by telephone. He was able to tell the Tribunal that he does not like the Montrose Hostel. 7In his application for review AEB asserted that the facts and history relied upon by the Internal Review Officer of the guardianship decision were false and/or inaccurate. REASONS 8At the hearing the Tribunal was assisted by Mr Nicole Lucas who attended as an advocate for AEB and by Ms Phang who appeared for the Public Guardian. 9A discussion occurred between those present at the hearing as to the options available to AEB. The Tribunal was informed that there is no available alternative accommodation suitable for AEB and the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence before the Tribunal of any suitable accommodation. A discussion took place concerning a proposal being constructed as to alternative accommodation with the help from AEB's advocate and the Aged Care Assessment Team. 10The discussion also made reference to an alternative approach to the matter by way of application to have the guardianship order cease as AEB is in settled accommodation and accordingly the guardianship order may no longer be required. He was educated by Ms Phang that the Public Guardian may seek an early review of the guardianship order with a view to asking the Guardianship Tribunal to not continue the order. AEB's advocate, Ms Lucas, also indicated that she would like to see the end of the guardianship order. 11In the circumstances, there being no evidence before the Tribunal of any alternative accommodation option for AEB, the Tribunal was satisfied that the correct and preferable decision and the matter was the decision which had been made by the Public Guardian and affirmed on review, namely that AEB remain at his placement at Montrose Hostel. 12The Tribunal indicated that this outcome should not be taken to prejudice any future change of accommodation decision or to affect any decision the Guardianship Tribunal may be asked to make concerning the review of the guardianship order with a view to having it cease. Further decisions with respect to accommodation or concerning the cessation of the guardianship order are to be made according to the evidence available at the time when the matter is under consideration. 13Accordingly the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision under review. DECISION 14The decision under review is affirmed. Registrar 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: 03 July 2012