VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
human rights DIVISION
GUARDIANSHIP LIST	
vcat reference No. G93915	
CATCHWORDS	
Guardianship List – applications for appointment of an administrator – application for appointment of a guardian – disability and effect on decision-making – whether proposed represented person has decision-making capacity for the relevant financial and personal and lifestyle matters – whether administrator needed – whether guardian needed – relevant principles under the Act – will and preferences of the person – powers and duties of an appointed administrator – Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 sections 5, 8, 9, 29, 30, 31, 55 – application seeking orders as to whether an Enduring Power of Attorney is valid – Powers of Attorney Act 2014 – application seeking orders as to whether an Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker is valid – Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 – suspension of Enduring Power of Attorney – suspension of Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker.	

proposed Represented person	JZK	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne – via teleconference (on 28 July 2021 and 24 August 2021) and videoconference (on 30 July 2021)	
BEFORE	Member J. Sharkie	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	28, 30 July and 24 August 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	24 August 2021	
date of written reasons	26 October 2021	
citation	JZK (Guardianship) [2021] VCAT 1219	

Order
On 20 April 2021 [JZK] executed an Enduring Power of Attorney for personal and financial matters to the attorney named therein [TFI].
On 20 April 2021 [JZK] executed an Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker to the medical treatment decision maker named therein [TFI].
VCAT orders that:
1	The Enduring Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2021 is suspended.
2	The Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker dated 20 April 2021 is suspended.
3	[TFI], [address redacted], is appointed administrator for [JZK].
4	[TFI] has power to make decisions about all financial matters.
5	The administrator has powers given under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 section:
-	46(1)
-	52
6	Administrators must comply with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, which outlines their powers and duties.
7	The administrator must complete and send to VCAT for approval a Financial Statement and Plan no later than 05 October 2021.
8	The administrator must prepare an annual Account by Administrator. They must submit the first ABA:
-	for the accounting period: 24 August 2021 to 30 June 2022.
-	as soon as possible after 30 June and no later than 30 September 2022.
-	to be examined by State Trustees Limited, who may charge the estate an examination fee if VCAT approves.
The administrator must submit all later ABAs:
-	for each financial year, from 1 July to the following 30 June
-	as soon as possible after 30 June, and no later than 30 September in each year.
9	The administrator must not sell (dispose of) the represented person's interest in the property at [address redacted] without VCAT's permission.
VCAT makes this decision because it is satisfied that:
-	due to a disability, [JZK] does not have capacity to make decisions about the financial matters listed in this order
-	[JZK] needs an administrator, considering the factors set out in section 31 of the Act, including their will and preferences (what's important to them)
-	this administration order will promote the personal and social wellbeing of [JZK]
Reassessment of this order
10	This order applies until VCAT makes another order.
11	Anyone can apply for VCAT to reassess this order at any time.
12	VCAT will reassess this administration order no later than 30 September 2024.
Change of contact details
13	If [TFI] or [JZK] changes contact details (email, phone or address), [TFI] must immediately inform VCAT in writing.
Dismissal of application for Guardianship order
14	The application for a guardianship order is dismissed.
Medical Treatment decision maker
VCAT records that [TFI] is the domestic partner of [JZK] and is available, willing and able to make medical treatment decisions for [JZK]. Therefore, under section 55 of the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016, it appears that [TFI] is the medical treatment decision maker for [JZK].
Participation of [JZK] in the hearing
[JZK] attended the hearing in by video and telephone conference systems.

J. Sharkie
Member			

APPEARANCES:		
JZK, proposed represented person 
TFI, JZK’s partner
Mr N. Collin, legal practitioner for TFI
PCH, JZK’s sister
Mr T. Davies, legal practitioner for PCH
NAC, JZK’s brother-in-law

Reasons
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.
Introduction
1	In these written reasons for decision, I refer to the person who is the subject of the application as JZK. 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	This matter came before the Tribunal initially on 28 July 2021, evidence was given on that day and submissions were made by the respective legal practitioners Mr N. Collin, representing TFI, and Mr T. Davies representing PCH. Evidence was given by TFI and PCH. I also heard from JZK on that day. The matter was then adjourned for further hearing on 30 July 2021 to enable further evidence to be given. On 30 July 2021 evidence was given by HRT and OGT (friends of JZK) and by NAB. Pursuant to my direction made on 30 July 2021 the legal practitioners prepared written submissions. The written submissions were referred to on 24 August 2021. Further statements were made by the applicants and JZK on that final hearing day.
3	There were five applications before the Tribunal. Four applications were lodged prior to the commencement of the hearing and the final application was lodged during the hearing.
4	The first application was dated 23 June 2021 and was made by PCH seeking a determination as to whether the Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker dated 20 April 2021 was valid and raised the following issues: namely, that the Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker was executed under duress and further, having regard to the medical diagnosis by Dr Saad Ahmed that JZK has dementia and has “no capacity to make financial or health decisions” and the applicant was concerned that JZK’s health was declining rapidly as a result of not being provided adequate care and that the care of JZK was being neglected. The application also raised the suspicion that JZK would be “disallowed” from attending the hearing or that he will be under duress from TFI.
5	The second application was dated 23 June 2021 and was made by PCH seeking orders appointing NAC and herself as administrators and guardians for JZK. The application raised the following issues: namely that TFI was the “house partner” of JZK and there was fear for the safety and general wellbeing of JZK. Furthermore, TFI had a disability and was thus incapable of caring for JZK or managing his financial affairs. Given that PCH and NAC were close to JZK, they were seeking to be appointed as guardians and administrators.
6	The third application was dated 23 June 2021 and was made by PCH seeking orders to revoke vary or suspend the Enduring Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2021 and for the attorney to provide accounts and sought a declaration as to whether the Enduring Power of Attorney was valid. The application raised the following issues: namely that JZK did not have sufficient capacity to make the Enduring Power of Attorney, that there was a concern that TFI had been using her appointment as the attorney to benefit herself and had not been acting in the best interests of JZK. The application raised the same issues of suspicion of “disallowance” and duress as set out in the second application referred to in paragraph 6.
7	The fourth application was dated the 21 July 2021. It was made by TFI seeking orders to appoint State Trustees Limited as administrator and TFI as guardian. The application raised the following issues: that JZK is incapable of handling his financial affairs, that JZK and TFI were domestic partners and had a stable relationship; that JZK had expressed a wish for TFI to be his guardian. There was an assertion that the relationship between JZK and PCH was not close. 
8	When asked why the application seeking to have State Trustees Limited appointed as administrator had been made, TFI explained that she thought it was something which was “fair”. However, whilst giving her evidence TFI suggested that she was the best person to undertake the role of administrator. On the first day of the hearing, TFI sought to unwind from or move away from her application which sought the appointment of State Trustees Limited.
9	On 23 August 2021 by letter from Mr Collin, he sought leave “to include [TFI] as an applicant for an order for Administration”. An application was filed but not sent to Mr Davies. I interpreted this letter as a request by TFI to fill the role of the administrator for JZK. I indicated at the commencement of the final day of hearing on 24 August 2021 that it was always my understanding as the matter developed, that TFI wanted to be considered as a possible administrator for JZK. I observed that the Tribunal tends to consider a range of persons as possible administrators. Mr Collin submitted that the application was made to formalise the matter and that that his client wished to be considered as a possible administrator. It was clear to all parties that TFI wanted to be considered as a possible administrator. Mr Davies had no objection to the filing of the late request and conceded that the Tribunal had a discretion in the matter. 
10	There were hearings in relation to these applications on 28 July 2021, 30 July 2021 and 24 August 2021 where I was the presiding member. I made orders at the end of the final day of hearing on 24 August 2021 and gave oral reasons for my decision. Mr Collin, the legal practitioner for TFI has asked for written reasons and I set out below an expanded written version of the reasons I gave at the hearing. 
11	I suspended the Enduring Power of Attorney dated 20 April 2021 and executed by JZK which appointed TFI as attorney for personal and financial matters.
12	I suspended the Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker dated 20 April 2021 and executed by JZK which named TFI as the medical treatment decision maker.
13	I appointed TFI as administrator for JZK with power to make decisions about all financial matters for JZK. I ordered that the administrator could exercise all the powers of an administrator in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (the GA Act). 
14	I dismissed the application for a guardianship order.
15	I recorded in the order that TFI is the domestic partner of JZK and is willing and able to make medical treatment decisions for JZK and therefore under section 55 of the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016, it appeared that TFI is the medical treatment decision maker for JZK.
16	At the hearing, I heard evidence from the following people: JZK, TFI, PCH, NAC, HRT, OGT and YJQ.
17	When VCAT hears an application to appoint an administrator and/or guardianship for a person, section 29 of the GA Act says the person must attend the hearing. 
18	JZK attended every day of the hearing remotely. He attended by telephone conference on 28 July 2021 and 24 August 2021. He attended by videoconference on 30 July 2021. All other persons who gave evidence also attended the hearing remotely.
19	Owing to the Tribunal directives in place, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the general position is that no “in person” hearings for applications of this nature in the Tribunal’s Guardianship List can be conducted. 
Principles
20	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:
a	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;
b	the will and preferences of a person with a disability should direct decisions made for the person, as far as practicable; and
c	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. 
21	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. 
The will and preferences of JZK
22	It is clear that when appointing an administrator or a guardian, VCAT must apply the principles in section 8 of the GA Act, including the notion that JZK’s will and preferences should direct the decision “as far as practicable”.
23	JZK’s will and preferences are relevant also when VCAT decides whether a person needs an administrator and/or a guardian (section 31) and whether a proposed administrator is a suitable person to be appointed (section 32(3)(a)). 
24	JZK attended each day of the hearing. I heard evidence about his will and preferences directly from him.
25	I accepted as apparent that JZK and TFI have had a long-standing domestic relationship. I considered the evidence given by YJQ that her children regard JZK as their grandfather. TFI was clear in her evidence that she did not want anything done by the Tribunal which would upset the relationship between JZK and TFI, but to a greater extent between JZK, herself and her children.
26	The property is jointly owned. The parties are not married. I noted JZK’s words that (marriage) was “just something they did not get around to”. The situation is a that lot of people do not marry, but that is not to say that a domestic relationship and partnership does not exist.
27	The applications that were brought to the Tribunal by PCH seem to have arisen as a result of an interpretation by PCH that the relationship between JZK and TFI was not good, that there were threats over the period of time that TFI wanted to leave (the relationship), and JZK would from time to say that he wanted to “get away” from TFI. There was a period in April 2021 when JZK had stayed with PCH and NAC at their home.
28	Based the matters referred to in paragraphs 25, 26, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53, I was satisfied that JZK has a sound domestic relationship with his partner TFI, that he wanted to continue to live in their jointly owned home with TFI and that if any person was to be appointed as his administrator, he wanted that person to be TFI. He expressed some degree of bewilderment as to why PCH had brought the matter before the Tribunal.
Disability and decision-making
29	Section 30(2)(a) of the GA Act says VCAT may only appoint an administrator and/or guardian for a person (in this case JZK) if satisfied that because of the person’s disability, the person does not have the requisite decision-making capacity in relation to the financial matters and/or health and lifestyle decisions which are the subject of the applications. 
30	The respective legal practitioners were of the opinion, based on the report of Dr Ahmed, that JZK lacked capacity.
31	I considered the medical report dated 12 April 2021 from Dr Ahmed, geriatrician. According to the report, Dr Ahmed assessed JZK on the day the report was written. A Montreal Cognitive Assessment was undertaken yielding a score of 8/30. Low scores were obtained for delayed recall, orientation, abstraction and visuospatial executive function. A history was taken in relation to the finances and health of JZK. According to the history Dr Ahmed ascertained that JZK receives an aged care pension; was unsure about the utility bills and could provide no information about the last electricity bill, the amount, or its payment. It seemed to the doctor that TFI attended to these matters. JZK was able to state that he owned the home and that it was fully paid but was unsure about the value of the house and was not able to provide Dr Ahmed with a range of value or its current worth. Further, JZK was unsure about his medical problems. Apart from a runny nose, JZK thought he had no medical issues. JZK was unsure about his medications. Dr Ahmed determined that JZK had no capacity to make financial or health decisions.
32	Consideration of the medical report led me to the conclusion that JZK would lack the capacity to make financial or health decisions.
33	The opinion of Dr Ahmed was not contested by either applicants and in fact, the applicants’ respective legal practitioners respectfully suggested that JZK did not have the requisite capacity (see paragraph 30, and the applicants’ respective submissions).
34	The opportunity to hear from and observe JZK in the hearing somewhat supported my conclusion in paragraph 32.
Is a supportive administration order AND/OR SUPPORTIVE GUARDIANSHIP appropriate?
35	In certain circumstances the appointment of a supportive administrator and/ or a supportive guardian may be regarded by the Tribunal as a less restrictive option than appointing an administrator and/or guardian. A less restrictive order would be consistent with the principles in section 8 of the GA Act. 
36	VCAT has power to appoint a supportive administrator and/or guardian whenever an application is made for appointment of an administrator and/or guardian, as provided by section 87 of the GA Act. 
37	Whether the less restrictive option can be put in place, the Tribunal must be satisfied whether JZK is able to consent to such supportive appointments. Not only must the person consent but the person must have decision-making capacity when practicable and appropriate support is provided, as set out in section 87(2) of the GA Act. 
38	I formed the opinion having heard from JZK and being able to observe him in the course of the hearing (particularly during the videoconference hearing on 30 July 2021) and, considering the contents of Dr Ahmed’s report, that JZK would not be able to consent to such less restrictive supportive appointments.
39	Accordingly, such less restrictive alternatives were not available in this case. 
Need for an administrator
40	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.
41	Section 31 of the GA Act sets out several matters which 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. 
42	In this case, JZK needs an administrator because there is a lump sum which is managed by Mr Sharples, his financial advisor. The property lived in by TFI and JZK is jointly owned by them. General household expenses need to be paid. Decisions will have to be made regarding the lump sum investment and instructions will need to be given from time to time to Mr Sharples. Having regard to the opinion of Dr Ahmed, I am of the view that JZK lacks the capacity to adequately manage these financial matters.
43	I have considered JZK’s will and preferences. Although he expressed an initial view that he thought he could manage, he agreed that if he required an administrator, he preferred TFI to fill such role.
44	I have also considered possible informal means of managing his income and expenditure and particularly the lump sum investment and in this case, less formal decision-making is not practicable. 
45	Appointing an administrator will not interfere with the relationships that are important to JZK because if TFI is to be appointed, she is in an ongoing domestic partner relationship with JZK.
46	Taking all this into account, I am satisfied that JZK needs an administrator.
NEED FOR A GUARDIAN
47	In relation to the appointment of a guardian, I am not so certain that there is a need. The consideration of this aspect really goes to the thrust of PCH’s applications. PCH says the relationship between JZK and TFI has deteriorated to such an extent that JZK needs to change his accommodation and should be accommodated with and cared for by PCH.
48	I heard evidence from PCH in relation to conversations which had occurred with JZK wherein JZK expressed a desire to leave the relationship with TFI. JZK denied those conversations and indicated that like any relationship “things ebb and flow” and that he is committed to his partner TFI. JZK reiterated this sentiment when given the opportunity on the final day of the hearing on 24 August 2021. 
49	On 30 July 2021, I heard from two friends of JZK. HRT gave evidence as to her perception of the relationship between JZK and TFI. She wanted JZK looked after and considered it was in JZK’s best interests for PCH and NAC to take care of JZK. She thought the relationship between JZK and TFI was not good. I assessed her evidence as broad assertions, perhaps in the context of her lack of access to her friend JZK. I did not take this evidence into account as proof of the fact that the relationship between JZK and TFI has deteriorated.
50	On 30 July 2021, OGT a close friend of JZK for a number of years gave evidence. He explained that there had been a recent get-together at the Bakami restaurant in March 2021. On that occasion, JZK indicated to OGT that he wanted to move from TFI as he didn’t feel safe. OGT further explained that over the past five years or so that TFI had indicated to him that she wanted to leave JZK. OGT was of the view that JZK should leave TFI. There was also a suggestion made by OGT that JZK and TFI had slept in separate rooms for about four or five years.
51	The evidence of HRT and OGT was challenged to a degree. YJQ explained that she was a regular visitor to the property and thus had the opportunity to regularly observe the situation at the home of JZK and TFI. YJQ said that she stays overnight throughout each week. I did not find anything adverse in the reluctance of YJQ (as submitted by Mr Davies) to provide evidence as to where she was on the other nights of the week or why she chose to stay with JZK and TFI. I did not find this reluctance as assisting my decision in anyway. YJQ said that JZK and TFI loved each other. They do not live together as boarders. They do sleep in the same bedroom. TFI, according to YJQ, shows a genuine concern for JZK. YJQ visits the home on a regular weekly basis and these visits enable her to observe the relationship between JZK and TFI. In my opinion, YJQ’s evidence due to her regular contact and observations was to be preferred over the evidence of OGT and HRT.
52	This matter is not so much about the relationships or best “interests”. The GA Act specifies the Tribunal is required to take into account, as best the Tribunal can do, what it is that JZK wants. JZK says the relationship between himself and TFI is sound. He wants it to continue. JZK was clear that if an administrator was to be appointed, he preferred this person to be TFI, even though he considered that he could undertake the financial management himself. However, for the reasons I have previously indicated particularly the findings in Dr Ahmed’s report, JZK is not capable of managing his own financial affairs. It is simply not the case that he is able to do so (see paragraph 32).
53	I accepted the fact that JZK was in a relationship with TFI. It was a long-term relationship. That he wanted the relationship to continue. JZK and TFI own a house together which they live in. It was clear that no accommodation decision needs to be made. JZK indicated he wanted to remain living in his house with TFI, who, with the support of YJQ looks after JZK. TFI has engaged with Dementia Australia for guidance and support to assist her with an understanding of the needs of JZK. No decisions regarding provision of services are required by any other person than TFI. Therefore, it follows that any decisions regarding the provision of services to JZK can be informally made by his partner TFI, and it follows that these informal decision-making processes would constitute a less restrictive means for making such decisions. Whilst a decision may have to be made in the future regarding supported accommodation for JZK, such a decision does not have to be made at this stage. Consequently, there is no need for a guardianship order to be made. 
54	As far as any medical decisions are concerned the Medical Treatment and Planning Decisions Act 2016 provides that the default person in this instance would be TFI. 
PERSONAL AND SOCIAL WELLBEING 
55	Section 30(2)(c) of the GA Act 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 because an administrator will be able to protect and preserve his assets including the lump sum investment as well as attending to the payment of household expenses and normal living expenses.
THE ENDURING POWER OF ATTORNEY AND APPOINTMENT OF MEDICAL TREATMENT DECISION MAKER DATED 20 APRIL 2021
56	An Enduring Power of Attorney and Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker appointing TFI as attorney and medical treatment decision maker was executed by JZK on 20 April 2021.
57	The parties respectfully suggest that JZK did not have the capacity having regard to the medical report of Dr Ahmed, to make that document on that day. Dr Ahmed’s report is dated 12 April 2021. The report refers to an appointment that JZK had at the office of Dr Ahmed on the day it was prepared by Dr Ahmed.
58	When JZK attended Mr Collin’s office on 20 April 2021 to make the Enduring Power of Attorney, Mr Collin gave evidence and conceded that he was not aware of JZK’s cognitive situation. Mr Collin gave evidence that that he had been a legal practitioner for many years and, to use Mr Collin’s words, he is “pretty good” at assessing whether somebody has capacity or not to make such a document (as an Enduring Power of Attorney). Certainly, the assessment of capacity is a role in the administration of justice and the administration of the Powers of Attorney Act 2014 which the law casts upon witnesses to these documents.
59	I am not here to criticise in any way Mr Collin’s assessment that was made on 20 April 2021, but I do note that he is now saying in light of Dr Ahmed’s report and even though he assessed JZK in accordance with his years of experience and was satisfied on that day, nevertheless he is of the view that the Power of Attorney has some issues.
60	Mr Davies on behalf of PCH readily makes the point that in light of the report from Dr Ahmed, there was no capacity to make the Power of Attorney on 20 April 2021 and consequently, the document should be disregarded and instead the matter (being the appointment of a representative) be determined by the Tribunal to put in place an administration and/or a guardianship order.
61	Even though Mr Collin asserts that he made the appropriate assessments and formed a particular view on 20 April 2021 that the documents were being signed validly with JZK having the requisite capacity to do so, and even though both Mr Collin and Mr Davies concede in the light of Dr Ahmed’s report the documents were not valid, I am of the opinion, without making any decision as to the validity of the Enduring Power of Attorney and/or the Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker, that both documents should be suspended and replaced with an order for an administrator and an acknowledgement of the identity of the default medical treatment decision maker.
WHO SHOULD BE THE ADMINISTRATOR? 
62	JZK clearly stated that TFI should be his administrator. I am required to take into account his wishes.
63	TFI has been managing JZK’s financial affairs and in my opinion is capable of managing his affairs.
64	Mr Sharples in his note which formed part of the submissions by Mr Collin indicated that TFI has been attending the review sessions in relation to the lump sum investment help by JZK.
65	Whilst it may be that a conflict situation may arise in relation to the jointly owned property, however, in the context of the relationship between JZK and TFI which I regard as a long-term relationship, that potential conflict is no different to any other similar conflict in respect to a jointly owned home which might arise between any other married or domestic partners. An issue might be that, at some future time a decision may need to be made regarding supported accommodation and whether equity in the home needs to be accessed to make that a reality, but I do not accept that as an ongoing or existing or overpowering conflict. It is a conflict which exists in any couple or partner situation. 
66	TFI stated that she valued the connection and the support ongoing that she has had from Dementia Australia, which has been of considerable support to TFI in understanding JZK’s disability.
67	It is appropriate for TFI to be appointed as administrator. The possible default appointment of State Trustees Limited would only be made by the Tribunal where there is no suitable alternative. Furthermore, as was raised in the hearing State Trustees Limited does levy a charge for acting as administrator. In this instance, there is a suitable alternative in TFI.
Powers and duties of the administrator
68	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, 51 and 52). I made this decision because JZK owns an interest in a jointly owned property, has a lump sum investment and receives pension income. In this case, it is not prudent to omit decision-making power about any sort of financial matter as it may make the order ineffective or require a reassessment to add the necessary powers. 
69	However, the order restricts the administrator’s powers by requiring that the administrator cannot sell the interest of JZK in the jointly owned property without obtaining specific permission from VCAT. 
70	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. 
71	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 JZK’s will and preferences “should only be overridden if it is necessary to do so to prevent serious harm” to him. 
72	Section 55 of the GA Act sets out further requirements of the administrator. The administrator must act as an advocate for the represented person, must act in such a way as to protect the represented person from neglect abuse or exploitation and must avoid any conflict of interest. 
SUMMARY OF ORDERS MADE
73	The Enduring Power of Attorney and Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker documents which were dated 20 April 2021 were suspended.
74	TFI was appointed administrator of JZK for a period of three years to be reassessed no later than 30 September 2024. TFI is required to lodge with the Tribunal a Financial Statement and Plan no later than 5 October 2021. TFI will also be required to lodge an Account by Administrator to be lodged no later than 30 September in each year during the period of the order.
75	The interest of JZK in the jointly owned property cannot be disposed of without the Tribunal’s permission.
76	The application for a guardianship order was dismissed.
77	The Tribunal recorded that TFI is the domestic partner of JZK and is available, willing and able to make medical decisions for JZK. Therefore, under section 55 of the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016, TFI is the medical treatment decision maker for JZK.
78	The Tribunal noted that JZK attended the hearing by video and telephone conference systems.

J. Sharkie
Member