NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: ZBU [2016] NSWCATGD 11 Hearing dates: 28 January 2016 Date of orders: 28 January 2016 Decision date: 28 January 2016 Jurisdiction: Guardianship Division Before: P Molony, Senior Member (Legal) M Matheson, Senior Member (Professional) C Gerloff, General Member (Community) Decision: Guardianship order lapsed. Financial management order revoked. Catchwords: GUARDIANSHIP – review– where subject person is in Japan at the time of the hearing– order not renewed. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – review – no assets in Australia – no practical utility – no need for an order – order revoked. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr ZBU (person under guardianship and protected person) The NSW Public Guardian The NSW Trustee and Guardian Representation: Nil File Number(s): 59863 Publication restriction: Decisions of the Guardianship Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal have been anonymised to remove any information that may identify any person involved in the Tribunal's proceedings (s 65, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)). REASONS FOR DECISION STATUTORY REVIEW OF GUARDIANSHIP ORDER AND REVIEW OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER What the Tribunal decided 1. The Tribunal reviewed the previous guardianship order concerning Mr ZBU made on 22 July 2015 and decided the order should lapse. 2. The Tribunal revoked the financial management order it made on 22 July 2015 in relation to Mr ZBU. Background 1. Mr ZBU is a 41-year-old Japanese man who came to Australia in 2015 to study. While in Australia, he experienced a recurrence of his previously diagnosed life-threatening anorexia nervosa and severe obsessive compulsive disorder. This resulted in a number of admissions to hospitals. 2. On 19 June 2015, he was admitted to a public hospital in a very poor physical state, with neurological impairment secondary starvations. Mr ZBU was reported to be resisting treatment (turning off feeding tubes). He was assessed as being cognitively impaired as a result of his condition. Those treating him considered that he would best be treated in Japan, where he could communicate with others in a culturally familiar environment. 3. As a consequence, a social worker from the public hospital made an application to the Tribunal to appoint a guardian and financial manager for Mr ZBU. 4. On 22 July 2015, the Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian as Mr ZBU's guardian for six months with the functions of advocacy, health care, legal services, medical and dental consents, services, and transport and travel. The guardian was given coercive powers and the authority to override Mr ZBU's objections to medical treatments. 5. The Tribunal also committed Mr ZBU's estate to the management of the NSW Trustee and Guardian. That order was to be reviewed in six months' time. 6. This panel of the Tribunal was reviewing both the guardianship order with respect to Mr ZBU and the financial management order on their expiration. The hearing 1. At the end of these Reasons for Decision are lists of the parties to the application and the witnesses who attended the hearing. [Appendix removed for publication.] 2. The hearing was conducted by phone. Mr ZBU attempted to participate in the hearing by phone from Japan, but was unable to make any meaningful contribution because his mobile phone battery expired before he could do so with the assistance of an interpreter. 3. A representative from the Office of the Public Guardian confirmed that Mr ZBU had been repatriated to Japan on 6 August 2015 so that he could access appropriate treatment. He had been returned, with an escort, to his parents, who intended to facilitate his access to an eating disorders clinic. 4. The Public Guardian representative saw no need for a further guardianship order to be made. Her understanding was that Mr ZBU was now living in Japan. She was not aware of any plans for him to return to Australia. 5. A representative from the NSW Trustee and Guardian told the Tribunal that the NSW Trustee and Guardian held no funds belonging to Mr ZBU. All his funds had been expended in getting him escorted home to Japan. Mr ZBU had been concerned about a mobile phone contract he had entered into, but the NSW Trustee and Guardian had recently obtained the provider's agreement to the cancellation of that contract. 6. As a result, there were no outstanding issues with respect to Mr ZBU's estate, and he has no assets or income in NSW. The Tribunal's conclusion with respect to guardianship 1. The Tribunal accepted the evidence that Mr ZBU is now living in his home country, Japan. He returned there in August 2015. He is a citizen of Japan and is resident and domiciled there. He is no longer resident or domiciled in NSW. Indeed, on the evidence available to the Tribunal, he has no current connection with NSW. 2. In those circumstances he is not someone for whom the Tribunal could make a guardianship as he does not have any necessary connection with the State of NSW. 3. It is also clear that the objective sought to be achieved by the guardianship order has been obtained, and that Mr ZBU is now living in Japan. It is in his best interest that the guardianship order not be renewed. 4. In those circumstances the Tribunal determined to allow the existing guardianship order to lapse. The Tribunal's conclusion with respect to financial management 1. The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that Mr ZBU no longer has any assets or income in NSW which could be managed by the NSW Trustee and Guardian under the financial management order. 2. The continued appointment of a financial manager is therefore of no benefit to him as he has no continuing financial connection with NSW, which could be managed by his financial manager. 3. It is therefore in his best interest that the financial management order be revoked. ********** 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 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: 19 July 2016