NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: LBX [2016] NSWCATGD 49 Hearing dates: 22 September 2016 Date of orders: 22 September 2016 Decision date: 22 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Guardianship Division Before: J Simpson, Senior Member (Legal) Dr L Tong, Senior Member (Professional) B Epstein-Frisch, General Member (Community) Decision: The application for a financial management order in relation to the estate of Ms LBX is dismissed. Catchwords: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – application for financial management order – transfer of Ageing, Disability and Home Care ADHC accommodation service to non-government sector – no need for an order – informal support person willing to manage finances – application dismissed Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ms LBX (subject person) Mr LRG (applicant) The NSW Trustee and Guardian File Number(s): 803 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 What the Tribunal decided 1. The Tribunal dismissed the application for a financial management order and recommended that Mrs NFH become signatory on Ms LBX's bank accounts (together with another person if Mrs NFH so wishes). Background 1. Ms LBX is a 49-year-old woman with an intellectual disability who lives in an Ageing, Disability and Home Care (ADHC) group home at northwest Sydney. ADHC staff have been informally managing Ms LBX's money by being signatories on her bank accounts but ADHC will soon be tendering out its services to non-government organisations. Mr LRG, support worker, applied for a financial management order. 2. Ms LBX is already under the guardianship of the Public Guardian. 3. The Tribunal had to decide: 1. Is Ms LBX incapable of managing her affairs? 2. Is there a need for another person to manage Ms LBX's affairs and is it in her best interests for a financial management order to be made? 3. If so, who should be appointed financial manager? Decision 1. Ms LBX has a term deposit of $15,350 and about $6000 in a concession account. These are both with a commercial bank. 2. A consultant psychiatrist reported that Ms LBX has autism and severe intellectual disability. The Tribunal accepted that Ms LBX is incapable of managing her financial affairs. 3. With ADHC tendering out the group home, an alternative financial management arrangement is required. 4. Mrs NFH told the Tribunal that she is a long-standing friend and advocate of another resident of the group home. She has also known Ms LBX for about 20 years and advocates for her when there are any problems in her life. She visits the house weekly. She was willing to informally manage Ms LBX's finances by being signatory or joint signatory on her accounts. 5. Mrs NFH is also used to financial responsibility through being a Trustee of a Trust Fund which was set up many years ago by a Foundation for people with intellectual disability. 6. Mrs NFH's longstanding role was confirmed by Mr LRG from ADHC. 7. In view of the quite modest extent of Ms LBX's finances, the clear commitment of Mrs NFH to her and Mrs NFH's experience as a Trustee, the Tribunal did not see that it was in Ms LBX's interests to impose the formality and cost of a financial management order. 8. The Tribunal instead dismissed the application with a recommendation aimed at Mrs NFH (and, if she chooses, another person) being signatory on both of Ms LBX's accounts with the commercial bank. ********** 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: 16 March 2017