|
|
Australian
section
Milstern
Health Care
Retirement Villages - Urimbirra
and Lindfield Manor
Nursing Homes
- Ritz
and Yagoona
|
|
CONTENTS
Introduction
It has been suggested that this web page is
defamatory. I believe that this is because the page has been read out
of context instead of as part of a web site in which arguments and
context are created. Clearly it would be excessively tedious for the
reader and needlessly repetitive if I repeated all of the arguments
on every web page. There are over 400 of them. I have therefore now
written out a summary of these arguments. I am including a link to
that introductory page on new and on older pages as I update them.
Readers who come to the web pages for the
first time should consult that page. It will open in another window.
IF YOU HAVE NOT YET READ THAT PAGE YOU
SHOULD CONSIDER IT TO BE PART OF THIS PAGE AND ITS
INTRODUCTION.
Readers should consider it as an integral
part of this and other pages. This should remove any doubts as to the
intention of the web pages and their content.
Click
Here to go to the
introductory web page
The complaint about this web page was not
specific:- No reason was given for the claim that this page was
defamatory. To resolve the issue I have removed any comment of mine
that might be considered judgemental lest it is what gave offence. I
also apologise if the page gave the impression that it was the owner
of the company rather than the marketplace health and aged care
system which she and her company represent that I was criticising. To
address this issue I have now included material about the owners
retirement villages and other business operations in the wider
marketplace in order to place aged care into this very different
context.
I leave the reader to decide whether this
sort of environment is an appropriate one for health and aged care
and whether people who succeed in one can legitimately (and I don't
mean legally) bring the same patterns of thinking into health and
aged care - and whether this in fact happened. I argue that the
market and health/aged care are
essentially incompatible (pdf
file).
The selection of material to quote:-
Because the allegations made in the press reports were based on
assessments made by statutory bodies protecting citizens and on
allegations raised in parliament where there is a responsibility to
be fair I did not include all denials and other statements made by
the company and its staff in my original page. My comments were based
on the probability that there was substance to at least some of the
material.
It may be that the material was considered to
be defamatory because of a biased selection. I have therefore
reviewed all the material to ensure that the extracts are
representative and have included more statements made by the company
and its representatives. I have done the same for the new sections on
Retirement Villages and on the owner's hotel businesses. As a
consequence I have quoted from much more of this copyright material
than I normally do as fair use.
I repeat here that one thesis of this web
site is that likeable and charismatic people can be very successful
in the marketplace where they may perform well for themselves and for
society. I argue that these same people may perform poorly as
providers of health or aged care when that care is provided in a
marketplace context and is then evaluated in humanitarian terms. This
is because the two contexts are incompatible and those who succeed do
so by ignoring this incompatibility.
A good example of this is Peter
Smedley and his role in Mayne Health.
In the marketplace he was a hero but the application of his market
thinking to health care was Mayne Health's undoing. I have therefore
looked at the owner of Milstern's other successful business
operations. I have included some material to illustrate that
environment and the way success is achieved there. There are problems
when operating in such very different sectors and I recognise the
dilemma faced by those who try to do so.
The material is included for the reader to
assess and make up his or her mind. I would welcome a response from
Milstern and its owners in regard to this material and the selection
of representative extracts. I ask them to put their perspective and
respond to the concerns raised. This would be very
valuable.
Clearly I am on one side of the
divide in
perceptions that I describe on
another page on this web site. The arguments and assertions made are
intended to stimulate debate. This site lacks input from the other
side of the divide.
I am not in a position to clearly present the
position and arguments of those on the other side as I am critical of
them. I encourage Milstern to respond to the arguments on the web
site. They are summarised in the link at the top of this page. I will
include any comments they wish to make.
to
contents
The Milstern
Story
Milstern was a nursing home and retirement
village operator founded in 1986.
Mrs Millie Phillips a self made businesswoman
had made her fortune in mining. In the 1960s she developed an
interest in nursing homes and retirement villages. She formed
Milstern to acquire her health and aged care businesses and floated
it on the share market. She became involved in the marketing of a
diverse selection of products developed by an Israel
researcher.
Mrs Millie Phillips, a
survivor of the 1970s nickel boom, has again embarked on a public
course with the proposed listing of Milstern Health Care Ltd which
will seek 14 million $1 shares. At the launch of the prospectus
yesterday, Mrs Phillips, the chairman, said she will take a "huge
slice" of the float with Milstern Enterprises Pty Ltd, which she
controls, taking 2.5 million shares as consideration.
------------------------
Capital raised will be used to purchase, for $7.35 million, all
nursing homes operated by the Milstern group; partly finance and
purchase the land for the construction of a $6 million retirement
village in the Hills district in Sydney; and provide working
capital for the marketing and distribution of Omiderm - a
semi-permeable dressing for wounds.
Apart from property interests,
which include four nursing homes and three retirement villages,
Milstern has purchased the rights to four medical products and
other diagnostic tools used to detect bovine mastitis and
antibiotics in milk.
--------------------------
Mrs Phillips founded the nursing home and retirement villages
company in 1960 but is better known to the public for her
long-standing association with the nickel exploration company
International Mining Corp NL, of which she is chairman.
'Nickel Queen' On The Listing Trail Australian Financial
Review December 3, 1986
After 10 years out of the
limelight, housewife-cum-mining promoter Mrs Millie Phillips has
re-emerged with a new company - this time a health care concern
which is to raise $14 million from the public.
She hopes Milstern Health Care
Ltd, the new retirement village and nursing home concern, will
prove more profitable than her International Mining Corporation
NL, which for the past five years has turned in consistent
losses
The diminutive, Polish-born Mrs
Phillips, whose net worth is said to be about $40 million, says
she feels confident. Along with her mining activities, Mrs
Phillips has "been in the health care business" for 20 years or
so. And, she says, like IMC, she will "stick by the company until
it makes money".
Australia's richest self-made
woman earlier this year opened Rose Bay Towers as serviced
retirement apartments - which ultimately will also be sold into
Milstern along with other properties held by interests associated
with Mrs Phillips, including The Ritz Nursing home at Leura.
------------------------------
To show she means business, Mrs Phillips will put up $4 million to
take 4 million shares in Milstern, with a further 2.5 million
shares allotted to her as consideration for medical products
including Omiderm, the skin dressing developed in Israel for which
a company controlled by Mrs Phillips has the exclusive
Australasian agency.
Ultimately, she will emerge with
about 39 per cent of the company.
MINER MILLIE EXPANDS IN HEALTH CARE Sydney Morning Herald
December 3, 1986
Milstern Health Care Ltd
had a lacklustre day, but its $1 shares did open at $1.05 before
falling to $1.02 at close.
FINANCIERS KIND TO STAGS Sydney Morning Herald February 13,
1987
|
Mar 1987 Millie
Phillips and Professor Citri
|
However Mrs Phillips
projects the bulk of Milstern Health Care's profits will come from
the exploitation of the world-wide rights from research conducted
by Professor Nathan Citri, a microbiologist from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
At least 10 per cent of the
profits from nursing home operations will be ploughed back into
the marketing of the health care products and the testing kits
developed by Professor Citri.
----------------------------
Apart from the purchase of nursing homes and retirement villages
and construction of an addition retirement complex, the capital
raised from the listing and the some of the operating revenue from
the retirement homes will go to developing and marketing test kits
and wound dressings which Mrs Phillips hopes will be the company's
major source of revenue by the 1988-89 financial year.
------------------------
Since the prospectus was issued Milstern Health Care has signed an
agreement with the CSIRO for contract research into the use of the
Citri reagent in a field kit to detect bovine
brucellosis.
An agreement has also been
reached with the NSW Dairy Corp to undertake development work,
laboratory and field trials for another Citri product which tests
antibiotic residue in milk.
---------------------------
The prospectus estimates profit for the first six months as a
listed company will be $448,000 with net profit in the year to
June 1988 of $1.99 million.
---------------------------
As the architect of the new venture Mrs Philips confesses that she
also does not fully understand the finer technical points of
research despite the fact she has backed Professor Citri's work
for the past few years.
However Mrs Philips remains very
confident that her new venture will be a big success.
Millie Phillips Takes A Healthy Look At Profits Australian
Financial Review March 3, 1987
|
May 1987 A new Citri
test for AIDS
|
The research aims to
develop a new detector of the AIDS virus invented by Professor
Nathan Citri of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Milstern has funded Professor
Citri's research for the past 18 months and holds the world rights
to the Citri patents and potential franchises for pharmaceuticals
companies that would later market the device.
MILSTERN TO DEVELOP AIDS KIT Sydney Morning Herald May 28,
1987
Milstern Health Care Ltd
will fund the development of its new AIDS test in conjunction with
St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney. This development has the
potential to put AIDS testing kits in pharmacies.
Yesterday's announcement
explains the huge increase in Milstern's share price.
--------------------------
Milstern's resident medical specialist, Dr M. Garvan, said
yesterday that if the test kits did not reach the stage where they
were on sale to the public it would be for political rather than
practical reasons.
Milstern Will Fund AIDS Diagnostic Kit Australian Financial
Review May 28, 1987
to
contents
Takeovers, share sales and delisting from
stock market:- There was no more mention of the Israeli professor
and his many research inventions. In 1988 Milstern wrote off a large
sum and was taken over at 65c a share by Namark of which Mrs Phillips
son was managing director. Following this Mrs Pillips owned 92.2
percent of Milstern. To keep the company listed she sold some of her
shares.
The company suffered during the market
collapse of the 1980s and came into dispute with the Commonwealth,
about fees. In 1993 the companies shares were suspended and it was
then delisted. Information about the company became scanty for some
years.
|
Oct 1987 Not meeting
projections
|
Milstern Health Care Ltd posted a maiden net profit of $278,000,
which was below the projections made in the company's
prospectus.
However, the group's operations
started two months later than anticipated, and the results took
into account only five months of trading.
MILSTERN MAIDEN RESULT Australian Financial Review October
1, 1987
|
Sep 1988 A loss and
write off of research
|
In its second full year of operation, Milstern Health Care Ltd
has posted a 42 per cent increase in pre-tax profit to $725,000,
on turnover of $16.32 million.
----------------------------
However, Milstern suffered extraordinary losses of $3.5 million,
taking the company's total consolidating operating loss to $3.22
million.
In accordance with a decision
made in the first half of the year, Milstern wrote off all
capitalised research, distribution and prospectus costs as
extraordinary items.
MILSTERN EARNS MORE BUT OMITS DIVIDEND Australian Financial
Review September 8, 1988
|
Sep 1988 Takeover by
a family company.
|
Unlisted Mamark Holdings Pty Ltd has increased its offer for
nursing home and retirement village developer Milstern Health Care
Ltd to 65 a share.
--------------------------
The managing director of Mamark, Mr Robert Phillips, said that the
revised offer, which values Milstern at about $10.75 million, was
more than fair, considering the rapid increase in Milstern's share
price.
----------------------------
Mamark has already taken control of Milstern with 48.9 per cent of
issued capital.
MAMARK LIFTS ITS OFFER FOR MILSTERN TO 65 A SHARE
Australian Financial Review September 1988
|
Apr 1989 What is
this relationship?
|
Millie Phillips has sold down her commanding shareholding of
Milstern Health Care Ltd in an effort to keep the nursing home and
retirement village development company listed.
Yesterday Milstern Enterprises
Pty Ltd announced that it had reduced its stake in Milstern,
floated by Mrs Phillips in 1986, from 92.2 per cent to about 89.12
per cent by selling 2.5 million shares for 65c each or about $1.6
million.
Mrs Phillips' son and Milstern's
managing director, Mr Robert Phillips, yesterday said that the
private company had sold down its stake to keep Milstern Health
listed, and would continue to sell to reduce the stake to 85 per
cent.
-----------------------------
The extra shares now held by Milstern Enterprises appear to have
been gained through a takeover bid of 65c a share made last year
by Manmark Holdings Pty Ltd.
PHILLIPS REDUCES HER MILSTERN HEALTH CARE STAKE Australian
Financial Review August 11, 1989
Milstern's nursing home and retirement villages have been
operating satisfactorily. It benefited from the buoyant Sydney
residential market and settled a number of fee disputes with the
Commonwealth during the year.
MILSTERN UP BUT SHORT OF FORECAST Australian Financial
Review August 31, 1989
|
Apr 1990 Downturn of
late 1980s
|
Millie Phillips' Milstern Health Care Ltd has been affected by
the poor residential property market and high interest rates, with
its pre-tax profit falling to just $62,000 for the half to
December 31.
That almost break-even result,
recorded on sales which fell by 7 per cent to $16.2 million,
compares poorly with the $1.2 million pre-tax profit reported for
the previous corresponding half.
PROPERTY PROBLEMS AFFECT MILSTERN Australian Financial
Review April 3, 1990
A substantial drop in interest charges has helped Mrs Millie
Phillips'Milstern Health Care Ltd report an improved pre-tax
profit for the six months to December 1990, up from $64,000 to
$568,000.
INTEREST CUT BOOST FOR MILSTERN Australian Financial Review
February 13, 1991
|
Aug 1993 Removed
from stock exchange
|
"The above company whose securities are already suspended have
not paid their Annual Listing Fees for the year commencing 1 July
1993."
MILSTERN HEALTH CARE LIMITED: ASX MARKET RELEASE - UNPAID
ANNUAL LISTING Australian Stock Exchange Company Announcements
August 24, 1993
to
contents
Mrs
Millie Phillips
Millie Phillips was clearly a remarkable and
forceful woman. Her efforts deserve our admiration. Left destitute
with two children, she borrowed and then made her fortune in Nickel
before turning to health and hotels.
|
Dec 1986 Mrs
Phillips career
|
From a standing start - a
marriage break-up had left her with two children- she had made her
first million within five years.
Over the years, IMC has had its
ups and downs - mostly downs - with a low point coming when Mrs
Phillips was charged with insider trading. She bought 4,000 shares
a fortnight before the Trough Wells assays were announced, adding
to the 2 million she already held.
The charges were dismissed, but
Mrs Phillips never sold those shares, watching their price plummet
from $10 to 10c. And neither has she sold down her holding or
relinquished her role as chairman of IMC, although the company has
been in and out of gold, nickel, uranium and a variety of other
commodities.
MINER MILLIE EXPANDS IN HEALTH CARE Sydney Morning Herald
December 3, 1986
|
Aug 1991 Australia's
richest woman
|
Millie Phillips, is not on
the BRW list but is often cited as Australia's richest self-made
businesswoman, and possibly the only woman to forge a career in
the largely male-dominated investment sector. Phillips borrowed
from a bank in 1961 to buy a small boarding house in Sydney's
Ashfield. She had just separated from her husband and had three
children to support.
-------------------------
Phillips also runs International Mining Corporation, a gold and
metals exploration company.
Polish-born Phillips, the first
woman to be charged with insider trading in Australia in 1974 (the
charges were later dismissed), is said to be worth over$40
million.
AUSTRALIA'S RICHEST WOMEN Sun Herald August 25,
1991
|
Aug 1999 More about
Phillips
|
After Phillips separated
from her husband in the early 1960s, she took a bank loan to open
a boarding house in Sydney while supporting her two children. She
made her first million within five years. International Mining
Corporation was listed in 1970, on the day that shares in the
nickel mining company Poseidon hit $200. The company was delisted
in 1997; at the time, Phillips was still running it.
-----------------------
In the 1990s, Milstern opened Rose Bay Towers in Sydney, a
block of serviced apartments, and the Ritz Nursing Home at Leura,
New South Wales, plus several retirement villages in New South
Wales and Queensland. As well as her involvement in the mining and
health-care industries, Phillips was the owner of Castle Hotel
Group and chaired the hotel group Flag International.
Where Are They Now? MILLIE PHILLIPS Business Review Weekly
August 13, 1999
to
contents
The Hotel
Businesses
(Not Milstern but the same
owners)
Two of Canberra's largest and most
prestigious hotels were acquired by Mrs Phillips and her son Robert's
other companies. They were also a catering business which provided
catering to the old parliament and to the National Library. The
conflicts, and the ups and downs in the hotel marketplace are
described in the press as are staffing issues. One of the concerns on
these web pages is the consequence for sick or aged citizens when
health and aged care markets experience similar conflicts, ups and
downs, as well as the disruption when they are traded from one owner
to another in the marketplace. What would have happened to aged care
residents had nursing homes been involved in the sort of dispute
described in the press reports in this section?
Of interest is the relationship between
owners/management and staff. Care in health and aged care is heavily
dependent on the dedication and motivation of the staff.
Relationships need to be different to those in the wider marketplace.
Staff also need greater security and continuity. Problems can arise
in the provision of care if management does not share the
humanitarian mission in the same way as their staff.
to
contents
The
Canberra International
Hotel
The Canberra International Hotel opened in
1981. It was acquired by the McGauran family business in 1988. Father
and two son's were prominent conservative National Party politicians.
Peter McGauran has been a minister in the Howard government for some
time. His brother Senator Julian McGauran created some political
flack when he defected from the National party to join John Howard's
liberal party.
The hotel was purchased by Mrs Phillips and
her son Robert when the McGaurin company restructured by going into
receivership. It was turned into 162 strata units. These were sold
independently.
|
Apr 1988 McGauran
family buy hotel
|
The McGauran Group, motel and hotel owner, has paid $16.25
million for the Canberra International Hotel.
-----------------------
The Canberra International, which fronts Northbourne Avenue, was
opened in 1981 and extended in 1984. It has 152 rooms, including
five suites, 36 guest apartments and an inground swimming
pool.
------------------------
A spokesman for the group said that the Canberra International
would be substantially refurbished.
MCGAURAN BUYS CANBERRA INTERNATIONAL Australian Financial
Review April 5, 1988
|
Aug 1988 Politics
and the McGauran family background
|
Peter McGauran is assured of at least one vote in any spill as
his brother Julian is a senator. Young Peter and his brother
Jules, from the Western Districts of Victoria, are reputed to be
the wealthiest men in Parliament.
--------------------------
Peter, Jules and their dad handed over $17 million for the
Canberra International Hotel on the weekend, which may bring in a
few more votes among the waverers.
BLUNT AND SHARP WAIT IN THE WINGS Sydney Morning Herald
August 2, 1988
|
Apr 1993 McGauran
group in receivership
|
The McGauran family's Rathdowne Melbourne and Downtowner hotels
and their Canberra International hotel have gone into
receivership, with the ANZ bank this week appointing an agent as
mortgagee in possession for the hotels.
---------------------------
The outgoing co-manager of the McGauran group of companies and
newly elected National Party senator, Julian McGuaran, said
yesterday that the company had negotiated the receivership with
the ANZ.
-----------------------------
Mr McGauran said the company's decision to restructure had also
been shaped by his return to politics, which would effectively
take him out of the running of the companies and reduce its
management team.
------------------------------
The group will be run by Mr Gauran's father, John McGauran, and
brother, John junior, when Mr McGauran moves to Canberra
soon.
Mr McGauran was a Victorian
National Party senator from 1987 to 1990.
ANZ Steps In At McGauran Hotels In Debt Rejig The Age April
3, 1993
|
Mar 1994 Hotel
bought by Mrs phillip and her son. Strata units sold to
investors
|
The sales of 95 out of 162 strata units in the Canberra
International Hotel at 242 Northbourne Ave brought in about $13.5
million for Sydney hotel investors Mrs Millie and Mr Robert
Phillips.
Their vehicle, Jaywood Pty Ltd,
bought the hotel for about $11 million in May last year. The
remaining units are on the market at between $123,950 and
$219,950.
HOTEL STRATA UNIT SALES TOTAL $13.5M Australian Financial
Review March 24, 1994
to
contents
Canberra Times threatened:- The Canberra Times was threatened
with legal action when they reported on concerns about profitability
and staff cuts. Business Sydney reported that others were doing
better. By 1998 the hotel was reported to be fully booked. Subsequent
developments and a legal dispute suggest that there was substance to
the Canberra Times report. The Australian Financial Review reported
in 2002 that what "is not in dispute is that the units have proved an
ugly investment".
|
Mar 1997 Profit and
staffing problems - Defamation threat
|
The Canberra Rex and the Canberra International Hotel have been
laying off staff because of heavy losses.
The Canberra Times has obtained
documents to this effect and statements from former and current
employees. These indicate that the hotels are ex-periencing
difficulties, though the owner says they are going better than
ever.
The hotels with 156 rooms each
and about 300 permanent and casual employees have been operating
with minimum staff.
A letter from former general
manager Michael Toomey, dated February 19, explains how he was
instructed by the owner, Millie Phillips, to change the Canberra
operations.
"The heavy losses the group have
experienced of late have forced the inevitable streamlining of our
Canberra operations," Mr Toomey told the employees.
"We regret we have no
alternative but to make your position redundant effective
immediately and enclose two weeks' pay in lieu of notice plus
accrued annual leave and the like."
Mr Toomey has since left the
company, which trades in Canberra as Castle Group Canberra. The
Castle Catering Group also provides catering at Old Parliament
House and the National Library.
Mr Toomey has confirmed that
more than 15 employees have been made redundant. Former and
current employees confirm this, and say many more have since
left.
Staff say the hotels are running
without a general manager but are achieving 50 to 80 per cent
occupancy.
The hotels are understood to be
being downgraded from 4-star to 3-star and staff have been told
the difficulties are short-term.
------------------------
Asked about the information from staff, Ms Phillips said hotel
operations were not changing and were going "better than
ever".
"If they are unhappy about
getting redundancies they should work a little harder," she
said.
She referred questions to her
Canberra solicitors, Vandenberg Reid, but the firm did not return
telephone calls. Instead, the solicitors threatened legal
proceedings against The Canberra Times.
The Rex is one of Canberra's
historic hotels and its guests have included former United States
president Lyndon B. Johnson.
Some employees have been told
that death and disability benefits attached to their
superannuation cover are at risk because the company has not paid
January's contributions. Ms Phillips and her lawyers have declined
to comment on this.
A letter from HostPlus
Superannuation Fund to an employee said insurance cover for death
or permanent disability was unavailable if the employer missed
payments, and the employer, Milstern Health Care Ltd (Canberra
Travelodge), had not paid the contribution.
Canberra Hotels In Trouble, Staff Lay-offs Canberra Times
March 19, 1997
|
Apr 1997 Hotel
feeling the decline in bookings
|
Canberra, Australia's Capital, is seeing positive developments in
its tourism and accommodation industry. - - - - Subsequently,
employment in the market has also risen, from 221 staff members to
a remarkable 2,354.
-----------------------
The Canberra International Hotel is one hotel that is feeling the
brunt of a decline in bookings, although in general, its occupancy
rate remains steady.
Three star hotels lead growth in ACT accommodation Business
Sydney April 7, 1997 FROM ABSTRACT by ABIX (Business Intelligence
Australia Pty Ltd)
|
Feb 1998 Now fully
booked
|
Canberra's tourism industry is experiencing its busiest time in
three months with major events in the city forcing some hotels to
turn away guests. - - - - the Canberra International Hotel also
are fully booked.
Boom Time For Hotels Canberra Times February 4,
1998
to
contents
The Strata Title Investors precipitate a dispute:- In 1999 a
crisis was precipitated by the strata title owners who elected to
terminate Millie Phillips company as manager. They claimed
profitability was way below what they expected. They appointed
another manager. Mrs Phillips still owned 42 of the units. She
rejected the majority decision and continued to manage these units
through her company.
As a consequence two hotels were run in the
same premises. A six year very costly court battle followed. At the
end of this the judges
ruled that although the original
brochure had contained "glowing puffery" that should have been
ignored, the financial losses were due to the market and could not be
blamed for this. He indicated that management deficiencies had
contributed to the losses but indicated that the investor's claims
had not been made on this basis.
The court decided in favour of Mrs Phillip's
companies and huge costs were awarded against the investors. The saga
is interesting in what it reveals about marketplace disputes. Had
this been nursing homes or hospitals would these payments have placed
pressure on the funding for patient care? Would management's focus
have been diverted from care to market concerns? Would "glowing
puffery" have been recognised as such by anxious seniors and their
families? Would the law view this in the same way?
|
May 1999 Precipitate
closure when owners installed a new
manager
|
Guests at the 156-room Canberra International Hotel in
Northbourne Avenue, Dickson were shown the door last weekend when
management walked out, leaving no-one to run the hotel and
threatening its short-term future.
---------------------------
The walkout follows a decision by the 109 owners of the rooms at
the Canberra International to replace its management company with
the Premier Hotel Group, which runs the Diplomat.
The changeover has not been
smooth.
----------------------------
The Canberra International was strata-titled in 1993 when
individual rooms were sold to investors at a guaranteed annual
return of up to 10.5 per cent for five years.
-----------------------------
The guarantee period ended last December and unit owners have not
been happy with arrangements since.
-----------------------------
"But we certainly expected to do better under new managers than
was offered by the old management." The owners did everything they
could to ensure a smooth transition from the previous managers to
the new. "We were still negotiating [last] Saturday
night."
Paul Green, of law firm Meyer
Clapham, which represents the former management company and its
principal, Millie Phillips, said the unit owners had not thought
through the changeover arrangements.
"The management was given an
ultimatum to get out by 10am he said.
"They own the business name, the
phone lines, the fax lines and, I think, every stick of furniture
except those in individual rooms. They own the paintings on the
walls."
Mrs Phillips, who also ran the
Canberra Rex, had put a lot of money into painting and maintaining
the hotel. She owned 42 Canberra International units as well as
most of the public spaces, including the reception area, manager's
office, restaurant, dining room, conference rooms and
kitchens.
"She feels she's been harshly
treated," Mr Green said.
These public areas might have to
be sold. "Whoever buys them controls the hotel," he said.
---------------------------
The hotel is expected to reopen on May 24, trading as the Pavilion
on Northbourne.
Management Out, So Guests Told To Leave City Hotel Canberra
Times May 8, 1999
|
Nov 1999 The court
saga commences
|
The 16 investors - whose numbers could soon swell to more than 30
- are suing Filaria Pty Ltd, the company which sold them units,
and the Independent Group, which handled the sales on Filaria's
behalf.
Some of the investors are also
suing individual sales representatives employed by the Independent
Group and the solicitors they, the investors, engaged to handle
purchases on their behalf.
Filaria Pty Ltd is associated
with the owner of the Canberra Rex, Millie Phillips. Mrs Phillips
owns 42 of the Canberra International's units. Another related
company, Jaywood Pty Ltd, which held a lease over the public areas
of the hotel, managed the serviced apartments until May this year
when the 109 unit holders terminated the arrangement.
----------------------------
One (Canberra law firm) has issued a number of notices
under the corporations law asserting that the contracts between
investors and Filaria are voidable because of Filaria's alleged
failure to issue a prospectus when the units first came on the
market. The prospectus issue also figures in the Supreme Court
claims.
-----------------------
The claims lodged with the Supreme Court allege misrepresentation,
misleading and deceptive conduct and false representations on the
part of Filaria, the Independent Group and various sales
representatives.
------------------------
The false or misleading representations allegedly relate to the
use to which units could be put and their long-term investment
potential, among other things.
The investors are seeking
unspecified damages and declarations that their 1993 contracts
with Filaria are void.
Hotel Unit Holders Hone Legal Swords Canberra Times
November 19, 1999
|
Nov 1999 Conflicting
views
|
Wrangling over the once great Canberra International Hotel in
Northbourne Avenue steps up a level this week when 42 of the 156
studio apartments split off to become a separate
motel-within-a-motel.
The owner of the breakaway 42
units and former manager of the Canberra International, Millie
Phillips, is to launch the Budget International Motel offering her
rooms for $55 a night.
The going rate for other rooms
at the hotel is $115.
Now trading as the Pavilion on
Northbourne, the hotel has struggled to attract business as Mrs
Phillips took with her the registered name, phone numbers and
client records, all of which she owned.
------------------------
As the hotel struggles, small investors who depend on the
apartments say they are suffering. Unit owner Iain Blackadder said
he and his fellow investors were "bleeding".
"We have had no income from our
investment since April and some of us are on interest-only
loans."
He said the unit owners spent
more than $100,000 on refurbishments after Mrs Phillips left. "It
was very rundown."
--------------------------
A spokesman for Mrs Phillips, Paul Green, of law firm Meyer
Clapham, said, "When Mrs Phillips ran the hotel, the unit holders
received a return.
"Since she was removed, they
have received no payments.
"Everybody's a loser."
---------------------------
The chief executive officer of the Premier Hotel Group, Peter
Barter, questioned whether Mrs Phillips would be permitted to run
the Budget International Hotel from Studio 101 of the
hotel.
"It's not in the lease purpose
clause," he said.
Mrs Phillips was
unmoved.
"The new managers are there
illegally anyway," she said.
Mrs Phillips claims ownership of
the common areas of the hotel including the restaurant, reception,
office areas and function rooms.
"They haven't paid for its use
yet." Many of the unhappy unit owners have launched legal
action.
They claim they would not have
invested in the units had they known how it would all turn
out.
Hotel's Woes Continue As Ex-manager Opens Motel Canberra
Times November 28, 1999
|
Mar 2002 A small win
for the investors
|
The long-running dispute between the owner of the former Canberra
International Hotel and investors in what is now the Pavilion on
Northbourne has seen the ACT Supreme Court refuse to place the
latter in the hands of an administrator to end a two-year impasse.
The dispute between Millie Phillips's company, Filaria Pty Ltd,
and the large number of owners of units at the Pavilion has led to
the bizarre situation of having two unrelated and rival hotels
operating in the one building.
--------------------
The upshot was that Filaria began operating the Budget
International Hotel, while Premier managed the Pavilion on
Northbourne, both from the same premises.
------------------------
Claiming the arrangement was intolerable and that the original
concept of the Canberra International Hotel had been destroyed,
Filaria instituted proceedings seeking the appointment of an
administrator of the body corporate representing the investors,
which the investors resisted. Chief Justice Miles said the present
situation was essentially of Filaria's making. Neither the
investors nor the body corporate had asked for Budget
International to be established.
Hotels in bizarre legal impasse Canberra Times March 11,
2002
|
Jul 2002 The dispute
and its implications
|
Ms Phillips is embroiled in what could be the largest and most
complex series of cases yet heard in the ACT as many of the owners
of units in the Pavilion on Northbourne Hotel & Serviced
Apartments battle to recover their investments.
The cases could have dramatic
implications for the broader real estate industry, for they pose
the question of whether developers, agents or owners should be
liable for misrepresentation if a property which is described
simply as a "good investment" ultimately proves
otherwise.
Fifty-nine of the investors have
actions against one of Ms Phillips's companies, alleging
misrepresentation over how their units could be used and over how
profitable they would be.
-------------------------
At the same time, a smaller group of investors in the hotel have
launched their own action arguing that because no prospectus was
provided at the time they bought their units, the sales breached
Corporations Law.
(Today such a scheme would
unquestionably require a prospectus but these units were bought
before the introduction of the Managed Investments
Act.)
All the defendants deny the
allegations. What is not in dispute is that the units have proved
an ugly investment.
-----------------------
But when the guarantee expired the trouble started. At a memorable
meeting, Ms Phillips told investors that the Canberra hotel market
was in the doldrums and, with new competitors coming into the
market, she could no longer meet their expectations. The investors
revolted and terminated the management agreement.
Most signed new agreements with
a new operator; some elected to manage their own. Ms Phillips, who
owns 42 units in the building as well as the nearby Rex Hotel,
went her own way.
----------------------
First the hotel closed altogether. And since reopening, it has
been plagued by disputes between the investors and Ms Phillips
over basic hotel necessities, such as the telephone system, the
restaurant, the office and the function rooms.
----------------------
Worse, Ms Phillips is undercutting the investors by offering her
rooms at a base $55 a night.
For investors, the results have
been disastrous. One owner, who had been banking $1,000 a month in
income is now receiving just $320. Sure, they earned big incomes
while the guarantee was in place but many, who financed the
properties up to the hilt, are today battling to fund the
mortgage.
Another investor, a former
school teacher in his late 70s, has gone back to work to maintain
the units that were supposed to maintain his
retirement.
Values have been savaged. One
investor believes her unit - for which she paid $123,000 - might
now be worth $60,000.
---------------------------
"This case is chewing up huge legal resources and potentially very
high costs millions of dollars to the loser," said Ms Phillips'
solicitor, Myer Clapham managing partner Paul Green.
Property - Hotel row evolves into legal saga. Australian
Financial Review July 13, 2002
|
Nov 2003 A win for
Mrs Phillips
|
In October, the investors failed to convince the court that the
transactions they had entered into should be set aside because of
breaches of Corporations Law provisions designed to protect
investors from dubious investment schemes. The ACT Court of Appeal
dismissed last week their appeal against the October ruling.
However, the investors' claims of misrepresentation and misleading
and deceptive conduct remain alive and have been the subject of a
lengthy but unresolved Supreme Court hearing this month. The
investors were ordered by the Court of Appeal to pay the costs of
Filaria and Jaywood.
Court dismisses appeal by apartment investors Canberra
Times November 1, 2003
|
Jun 2004 An
expensive defeat for investors - Judges conclusions and
criticisms
|
A large number of investors in a serviced- apartment project in
north Canberra have suffered a second expensive defeat in the ACT
Supreme Court in their bid to recover their losses from the
developer and a real-estate agency. The court has dismissed claims
by four investors that they were the victims of misrepresentation
and false and misleading by Filaria Pty Ltd, a company associated
with developer Millie Phillips, and the Independent Group Pty Ltd.
Several months ago the ACT Court of Appeal dismissed claims by 11
investors that their transactions should be set aside because of
breaches of Corporations Law provisions designed to protect
investors.
---------------------
Justice Crispin said it was understandable that investors were
acutely disappointed at the poor returns on their investment.
However, their losses - which occurred in and after 1999 - were
not attributable to misrepresentation or false or misleading
conduct in 1993 or at all.
Allegations that rents had been
set at unsustainably high levels and that profit projections had
been unrealistic and wrong had not been established. ''The losses
which the plaintiffs have sustained seem to have occurred
substantially because of management decisions taken in 1999 and a
failure to provide the necessary funds to adequately maintain the
hotel,'' the judge said. ''The events of 1999 seem to have left
the plaintiffs with considerable resentment against Ms Phillips
but no cause of action based upon those events was pleaded.''
Instead, the plaintiffs had sought to disclaim responsibility for
both the decision to purchase the units in the first place, and
for management and maintenance decisions, and to attribute their
losses in 1999 ''to some fault on the part of one or other of the
defendants in 1993''. ''No adequate basis for these contentions
has been demonstrated.''
Case lost against units developer Canberra Times June 16,
2004
|
Dec 2004 Punitive
costs awarded against investors
|
Four of the 60 investors in a serviced apartment project in
Braddon have been hit with a crushing costs order over their
failed litigation against developer Millie Phillips and a
real-estate agency, the Independent Group.
The four investors and their
lawyers, Gillespie-Jones & Co, were criticised yesterday by
the ACT Supreme Court for unreasonably refusing to negotiate a
settlement of claims the lawyers should have known were at best
tenuous.
---------------------------
An indemnity costs order is punitive in nature and is the highest
the court can make. The four plaintiffs will have to pay something
approaching the full legal costs incurred by their opponents since
May last year, including those of a 28-day hearing in the Supreme
Court. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are likely to be
involved.
-----------------------------
In May 2003, Filaria offered to settle all claims against it by
buying out each investor for $60,000 and paying everyone's legal
costs. The offer was rejected.
----------------------------
A second offer to settle, a few days after the hearing began, was
also rejected.
Investors to pay hundreds of thousands, judge rules
Canberra Times December 18, 2004
|
May 2005 Investors
lose on appeal
|
Investors in a serviced apartment project in Braddon may be
facing a legal bill of more than $4million as a result of
unsuccessfully taking their case to the ACT Court of
Appeal.
Canberra businesswoman Millie
Phillips, one of the successful defendants, said the case should
never have gone to court.
Her company had paid its lawyers
$1.3 million. A substantial proportion of this might now be
recoverable from the investors. She estimated the investors' own
legal costs to be about $3.6million. ''The only worthwhile aspect
were the legal fees,'' she said.
---------------------------
The Court of Appeal has now dismissed an investors' appeal against
Justice Crispin's legal rulings. It is yet to decide whether his
costs orders were justified.
---------------------------
The court said that an investment report prepared on behalf of the
defendants, in which various assertions on profitability were
made, had ''clearly contained glowing puffery that was
appropriately to be ignored''. However, the investors' losses were
the result of a depressed market and a falling out with Filaria,
not what was contained in the brochure.
Project's investors facing $4m legal bill Canberra Times
May 28, 2005
|
Aug 2005 Costs for
investors reduced by appeal court
|
Investors in a Canberra serviced apartment project have rescued
something from disastrous litigation against a developer and a
real-estate agency, but only to the extent that their losses are
not as bad as they might have been.
---------------------
But the ACT Court of Appeal has now overturned the judge's ruling.
The three judges said that while the settlement negotiations had
been confused and ''a mess'', they had been continuing.
The court's order means the
plaintiffs must still pay the defendants' costs, but not at the
close to full-cost recovery level previously ordered.
Court ruling eases 'crushing' losses for Pavilion investors
Canberra Times August 11, 2005
to
contents
The Rex
Hotel
The Rex hotel was not involved in similar
controversy. When it was time to pull it down and rebuild, it was
decided to redevelop the site for apartment blocks. The project
elicited some environmental objections and an outcry about asbestos.
A compromise was reached. Then it was bought by someone else, refurbished and
expanded.
|
Dec 2002 The story
of the Rex Hotel
|
The Rex was built in 1960 at a site that looked out over empty
paddocks and was the first significant building for visitors
driving in to the national capital along Northbourne Avenue. Its
guests have included United States president Lyndon B. Johnson,
Prince Charles and many of the world's best-known leaders,
personalities and entertainers, including Shirley Bassey, Sir
Robert Helpmann, David Frost, Dame Margot Fonteyn, James Mason and
The Seekers.
Canberra Rex enjoys its final festive feast Canberra Times
December 26, 2002
|
Dec 1988 Bought by
Mrs Phillips company
|
One of Canberra's best-known hotels, the Canberra Rex, sold last
week for$12.75 million to Rebenta Pty Ltd, a company associated
with Mrs Millie Phillips, the founder of the Milstern Group of
companies.
REBENTA IN $12M CANBERRA REX BUY Australian Financial
Review December 29, 1988
|
Mar 2002 Plan to
build apartments - objections
|
A $40 million plan to redevelop the historic Canberra Rex hotel
into a nine-storey 287-apartment complex has been unveiled for
public comment.
---------------------
Proposed by Sydney developer Millie Phillips, the one-and
two-bedroom apartments would be sold as long-term residences, not
serviced apartments, at prices between $180,000 and $240,000.
------------------------
The plan for the Rex requires Mrs Phillips to surrender her Crown
lease over the Braddon hotel site and apply for a regrant. The
hotel would be demolished.
------------------------
The Braddon representative on the Local Area Planning Advisory
Committee, Peter Conway, has objected to the proposal on heritage,
traffic and occupational-safety grounds.
-------------------------
But he said the major concern was the possibility that the
42-year-old building contained asbestos and he called for
certification from Commonwealth and ACT safety authorities that
the site was asbestos-free. - - - - - - - - The hotel was fined
$5000 in the ACT Magistrates Court in 1997 for exposing employees
to asbestos.
$40m redevelopment plan for Canberra Rex unveiled. Canberra
Times March 20, 2002
|
Apr 2002 Development
application
|
Hotel owner Rebenta Pty Ltd has submitted a development
application to Canberra City Council seeking to demolish the Rex
and construct 287 residential apartments.
----------------------
The Rex is located on a prime three hectare site on 150
Northbourne Avenue at Braddon in the heart of Canberra's
CBD.
Rebenta, which is lead by
national hotel owner Mrs Millie Phillips, bought the 31/2 star
hotel in December 1988 for $12.75 million. The property previously
traded for $2.395 million in 1983.
--------------------------
The Rex was built in 1964 and at six-storeys, was one of the
earlier multistorey buildings in Canberra.
It became famous as a stopover
for visiting dignitaries, including the then United States
President Mr Lyndon Johnson during his visit to Australia in
1966.
Flats For Canberra Rex Site Australian Financial Review
April 9, 2002
Turner Residents' Association president Mac Dickins said he
feared the proposed 287-unit development would add to Northbourne
Avenue becoming a "canyon of buildings". "It's going to be a very
big, massive building, and there's very little open space. It's
nearly all hard surface, and at the front the set-back is lacking
in soft landscaping," Dr Dickins said. "It is out of character
with the garden nature of the city and local people are very
concerned about the build-up of traffic in the area."
Braddon Residents' Association
acting chairman David Gordon said plans presented to the
Inner-North Local Area Planning Advisory Committee last September
by the developers had been largely acceptable, but the ones
proposed now were very different. "The development is
significantly more massive and covers the site to a much greater
degree," Mr Gordon said. "The number of units is grossly
excessive."
Neither the developer, Millie
Phillips, nor architect Tom Kean were available to comment.
However, Rex Hotel general manager Don Yourell reiterated that Mrs
Phillips had not yet decided to proceed with the project and was
first seeking development approval.
Locals baulk at Rex Hotel development Canberra Times June
2, 2002
|
Sep 2002 Compromises
and approval - to be demolished
|
The Rex Hotel on Northbourne Avenue will be demolished early next
year to allow for the construction of a 267-apartment complex, due
to be completed by the end of 2004. Rex owner Millie Phillips said
yesterday the hotel, built in 1960, would be demolished 'as soon
as possible'. Approval for the development to proceed was granted
by Planning and Land Management on August 28. The building will
close early in 2003 and residual asbestos will be removed before
the demolition work begins.
-------------------------
- - - - the number of proposed apartments has been reduced to 267.
Architect Tom Kean said the change was made to allow for more open
space within the complex and the retention of some existing trees.
The redesign was prompted by inner-north residents groups who had
concerns about the original proposal.
Rex demolition to begin next year. Canberra Times September
7, 2002
|
Nov 2007 The
Rex sold, refurbished
and enlarged - Not demolished
|
Local icon the Canberra Rex Hotel is to double in size with a nine-storey
addition costing up to $40million to be built on its site in Braddon. The
development will see the Rex increase from 156 rooms to just over 300.
Rex Hotel general manager Ray Palmer quashed suggestions from a caller
on local radio yesterday that the 1960 Northbourne Avenue building was
to be demolished.
-----------------------
The former owner of the Rex, Sydney businesswoman Millie Phillips, proposed
in 2002 to demolish the original building to make way for a nine-storey,
287-apartment development estimated to be worth $40million.
Development to see Rex rise and shine Canberra
Times November 22, 2007
Favouratism but not for Mrs Phillips:- During this period there
were allegations of favourable treatment of Milstern nursing homes
because of political donations and ministerial support. There was no
sign of this with the Rex. Mrs Phillips was critical when a minister
stepped in to fasttrack another operator's project and overrule her
objection to this nearby development.
|
Dec 2002 Government
steps in to helps competitor.
|
The western area of Civic received a long-awaited boost yesterday
with the ACT Government's announcement that the $140 million
residential development on Section 6 had been given the go-ahead.
Planning Minister Simon Corbell used his call-in powers to
short-circuit objections to the development, saying further delays
would not be consistent with community benefits.
-------------------------
The project hit a sour note with developer Millie Phillips, who
wondered why the trees on the Metropolitan site were worth less
than the 'six scungy conifers' which had cost her 16 apartments at
the 260-unit Rex Hotel development on Northbourne Avenue. 'In the
end I sacrificed the units there because I did not want to put in
another application and waste two more years,' she said yesterday.
'But I really would like to know why the minister can wave his
magic wand for this development but not for mine.'
City West $140m plan gets go-ahead Canberra Times December
20, 2002
to
contents
Equal
Opportunity Issues
Allegations about breeches of the equal
opportunities regulations in 2001 elicited an angry response by
almost all those who were named. It seems that the regulations
required excessively onerous documentation and these companies had
refused to fill in the forms. Mrs Phillips who employed large numbers
of women was outspoken.
|
Nov 2001 Mrs
Phillips refuses to fill in forms
|
They are among 29 companies in the retail, transport,
manufacturing and food and beverage sectors named in the annual
report of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace
Agency.
---------------------------
"Those companies named for non-compliance will have to suffer the
stigma of public exposure and the scrutiny of prospective
employees who may regard them as being adversarial to women and
equal opportunity," Ms Krautil said.
Managing director of one
recalcitrant company, Millie Phillips of Milstern Health Care in
NSW, said she did not have time to fill in the agency's forms. "It
is not appropriate for a company such as mine to have to spend
hours and hours and hours of filling in those forms. I've never
done it," she said.
"I'm a self-made businesswoman,
all my chiefs are women and 95 per cent of my staff is women. If
anyone has a complaint, it's men in my organisation ... how much
more womanised can I be? "I have told them every year, `I refuse,
do whatever you want, name me, shame me' ."
Equal rights file shames firms Courier Mail November 1,
2001
Milstern Health Care, which operates the notorious Yagoona
Nursing Home, is among 29 Australian companies named by the Equal
Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency for its failure to
obey the law.
------------------------------
Milstern Health Care employs about 800 people around NSW and runs
Yagoona, Leura and The Ritz nursing homes.
-----------------------------
The Act requires companies to report on programs and strategies
aimed at employing women and improving opportunities in the
workplace for women.
Home in breach of equal jobs Sunday Telegraph November 4,
2001
|
Nov 2001 Others
support Mrs Phillip in her objections
|
ORGANISATIONS named in a government equal opportunity "shame
file" have hit back, claiming they have been unfairly targeted
simply because they refused to complete mountains of
paperwork.
--------------------
Four of the five Queensland organisations named said they had
active equal opportunity programs but did not have the time to
return the paperwork demanded each year.
Shame on YOU - Companies hit back over `outing' in equal
opportunity report. Sunday Mail November 11, 2001
|
Oct 2002 A repeat
"offender"
|
The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency announced
details of 28 companies in breach of equal opportunity
legislation.
Agency director Fiona Krautil
said the number of companies ignoring the needs and rights of
women were declining, but many were repeat offenders.
---------------------------
In NSW, 13 companies had failed to comply with federal Equal
Opportunity legislation. They are: - - - - - - - - Milstern Health
Care Limited [Sydney]; - - - - .
Women take on bosses over rights Daily Telegraph October
29, 2002
to
contents
Retirement
Villages
Milstern has been active in the Retirement
Village marketplace. This sector suffered during the late 1988
economic downturn and investors were slow to return to it.
|
Sep 1993 Retirement
villages
|
The chairman of Milstern Health Care, Mrs
Millie Phillips, said
she had developed four retirement villages, the newest being
Windsor Gardens at Chatswood.
----------------------------
"The reluctance to lend to industries such as ours follows the
badly considered loans made by banks during the excesses of the
'80s," Mrs Phillips said.
LENDERS SHUT VILLAGE GATES Sydney Morning Herald September
25, 1993
|
Mar 1996 Owns nine
villages
|
Windsor Gardens in Mowbray Road, Chatswood
is Milstern's newest
retirement village. Milstern has a chain of nine villages,
providing all levels of care.
Villages Can Improve Quality Of Life For The Elderly Sydney
Morning Herald March 16, 1996
STOP
PRESS
Urimbirra
Village - "The
worst village" (Rewritten and
updated Jan 2009)
Residents who have purchased retirement units from one
owner whom they have researched and believe will care for them responsibly
in their declining years may find themselves and their services sold off
to an owner who behaves very differently. This can have an enormous impact
on their lives and on the quality of their final years. This is
simply another
situation where the market fails in aged care.
The Urimbirra Village in Hervey
Bay (Queenssland) was referred to as "The Worst Village" in a
2004 report from the Association
of Residents of Queensland Retirement Villages.
What happened there illustrates just how powerless residents are
in
the marketplace, and the consequences of aggressive commercialism
for residents.
A bitter dispute between Milstern and the residents
at Urimbirra Village has dragged on for 15 years. During this time their
numbers
steadily dwindled as the new owner, whom residents claim wished
to redevelop
the increasingly valuable property, bought out units as they were vacated
and
induced other
residents to sell. Residents claim they were put under pressure to sell
for a
fraction of their unit's
real
value
and
for
much less than they had originally paid.
A nucleus of thirteen
80 and 90 year olds held out and battled on alone, receiving very little
assistance from the bodies set up to protect their interests. It was only
in December 2008 that a decision in their favour was made by the Commercial
and Consumer Tribunal (CCT)vindicating their position. The
tribunals findings
were damning of Milstern and Ms Phillips, but they do not require Milstern
to
either continue operating the facility or to pay a fair
price for
these units, let alone one which compensates them for the disruption in
their planned retirement - so the battle continues.
The story
Milstern purchased the Urimbirra retirement village in
a bulk deal as part of a package of mostly NSW facilities in
1994. The residents
were soon in dispute with the new owner. There was correspondence
with
the office of fair trading about
Milstern's conduct as early as 1998.
Residents claim
that Ms Phillips did not want the facility, claimed she
could not make
a profit
from it, took little interest in it, and that she has blamed the
residents for problems there. Residents claimed that the property was not
well maintained,
was
allowed to deteriorate, there was little if any
consultation with residents,
few
replies to correspondence, and that little effort was made to sell
empty
units. Property in the area was booming. The residents
believe she wanted
to get them out and redevelop the site to make more money
from it.
Relationships deteriorated further in 2000
when Milstern
sent residents a demand that they pay an extra $90 a month. Some paid but
others refused because of inadequate financial documentation for
this charge
and because of unresolved tax issues relating to the payment of GST. The
residents
had difficulty in getting these matters to the tribunal because of legal
jurisdictional difficulties resulting from a recent change in the
act.
Newsletter
number 49 of December 2004 from the The Association of Residents
of Queensland Retirement Villages had a section near the bottom of the
page headed "The Worst Village". This described the concerns
the association
had about the way in which Milstern dealt with units at Urimbirra village
when the residents departed, and also residents complaints
about management.
They believed Milstern was in breach of the conditions under
which the
village was registered as a retirement village and was unlawfully defying the
Retirement Villages Act. Authorities took no action.
The residents were also concerned about the
retrospective
removal of a large sum from the sinking fund. Even though there was still
money in the sinking fund a levy was then raised from the residents to pay
for a new call system else this would have been refused by Milstern. The
residents felt that Milstern advertised this in its brochures and should
have paid
for it.
They gave in because of its urgency for many elderly residents.
The Office of Fair trading was approached in 2001
and again in 2003 about Milstern's accounting practices, but despite many
promises,
the residents were disappointed by their inaction.
The residents were dissatisfied
with Milstern's accounting practices and believed they were a breach of
the act. There were a multitude of financial and accounting matters they
took
issue with. They believed that Milstern was not disclosing accounts to
them that they were
required
to disclose.
Residents refused to approve the villages accounts because they
felt Milstern
supplied insufficient detail. There were disputes about what
Milstern rather
than residents
should be paying for.
Milstern increased general services charges
by 7% when
the regulations specified that they could not be increased above
the CPI (2.6%) without the approval of residents. The residents had not agreed
to this and had not approved the budget. The budget they claimed
gave insufficient
information and did not conform with the act. They maintained their stance
even when
Milstern claimed that the company might have to be wound up.
Urimbirra
staff dismissed (Added July
2010)
There is an interesting
snippet available on the web. It seems that in response
to a complaint by the residents, an inspector from the Department
of Fair Trading
attended the village. Mr Crossland, the manager signed consent forms to allow
him on site and also provided confidential documents to him. He
failed to notify
Milstern and did not seek their authority. He was promptly
dismissed by Milstern,
and at the same time his de facto who also worked at the complex
was also fired.
The matter came to the
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in February 2004. They
found that
there were grounds for dismissing Mr Crossland as he had not told his
employer about this. The commission found that the de facto had
been dismissed
on the grounds of marital status only and awarded damages of $9000, almost
the maximum allowable.
The 2005/6 Tribunal Decision
Milstern applied to the Commercial and Consumer
Tribunal (CCT) in 2005 asking them to approve the budget which the residents
had rejected. In rejecting Milstern's application on 11 December 2006 the
tribunal was
critical
of Milstern's management and its breaches of the act. It
expressed concerns
that the manager of the home had made an implied
threat to get residents to do what Milstern wanted. They were concerned about
future "detriment
to residents at the hands of the applicant as a result of their
action in rejecting
the budget and defending this application".
CLICK
HERE to download the 2006 tribunals
findings
|
Dec 2006 CCT
rejects Milstern's application
|
1: - - - - - - - - The order sought is that
the budget for the village for the 2005/2006 financial year
which has been
presented
to residents of
the village, but not passed by them, be approved by the Tribunal. John W
Sheppard and Vince Royce (“the first and second respondents”)
are co-spokespersons for the residents and they seek orders that
the application
be dismissed on the basis that the proposed budget for 2005/2006
is in contravention
of the Act.
------------------------------------------
7: - - - - - - It is clear upon an examination of the material
before the Tribunal
that both the budget and account keeping records do not comply with
the Act. The figures in the proposed budget show that the applicant
has increased general service charges by seven percent. This figure is above
the CPI figure and therefore is non- compliant with the Act. There
is provision
for the increase to be approved by the residents, however this would require
the increase to be approved by special resolution and no special resolution
meeting has been called.
------------------------------------------
14: The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed budget for
2005/2006 has not
been prepared in accordance with section 106(2) of the Act
as it stood
in 2005, and that there has also been non-compliance with section 97
of the Act in the way in which
the maintenance reserve fund is dealt with in the budget. The
Tribunal is unable
to approve the budget in its present form and the application must
be dismissed.
The budget must be reworked and presented again to the residents in a form
which complies with the Act.
---------------------------------------
15 The applicant has demonstrated lack of care and responsibility in
constructing the budget. Mr Garven appears to have adopted
the attitude
that it was the responsibility of the residents to advise the applicant if
the budget was in contravention of the Act, rather than the
applicant accepting
its clear obligation to prepare a budget which complied with the
Act. Mr
Garven has made an implied threat that retribution may be
exacted on
the residents of the village for their refusal to pass the budget.
He has said
that as a result of the residents’ action the management company may
have to be wound up. We are concerned about the potential
for detriment
to residents at the hands of the applicant as a result of their
action in rejecting
the budget and defending this application.
The applicant must address the legitimate concerns raised by the residents.
The delay in having the 2005/2006 budget passed is in no way the fault of the
residents, but is
the result of the applicant’s unacceptable conduct in
preparing a budget which
does not comply with the Act.
Commercial and Consumer Tribunal
: Application No:VH012-05 Delivered at Brisbane December
11, 2006
|
Dec 2008 Summary of 2006 CCT
finding by 2nd 2008 CCT hearing
|
53 It must be noted that
the Tribunal refused to approve the proposed budget for the village for
2005/2006 in an application brought by the respondent in
2005. The Tribunal
found that the budget was in contravention of sections 97 and
106 of the
Act.
Commercial and Consumer Tribunal :
Decision/VH009-07 December
18, 2008
Costs were awarded against Milstern
but it took some time to pay them. No action was taken against Milstern,
by authorities, for
breaching the act. Milstern ignored the criticism of its
accounting practices
and the residents continued to reject the budgets.
(Added July
2010) They
sought help from their local MLA, Tim Nichols and a reporter from the local
paper. The Association
of Residents of Queensland Retirement Villages reported
in April 2007 that according to the chronicle reporter village manager
Jim Garven verbally abused her and ordered them off the property. When the
MLA
refused to leave Garven threatened to call the police.
The December 2008 Tribunal Hearing
The residents applied to the tribunal seeking orders
requiring Milstern to prepare its accounts in accordance with the act and
to pay them additional GST refunds they believed Milstern still owed.
This was followed by almost 2 years of fruitless tribunal
required mediation
before
the tribunal
finally took
evidence.
Milstern meanwhile
attempted
to force the acceptance of the accounts
by threatening
to use the votes of the majority
number of units they owned
if the residents
did not approve the accounts. Milstern was not a resident and not entitled
to vote and the residents refused
to
back
down to this threat. Ms Phillips response to a press report about what was
happening was typically aggressive.
|
June 2008 Still a
bitter dispute.
|
THE owner of a Hervey Bay
retirement village
has been accused of offering one of its unit owners, who is
sick and infirm,
less than half what government-approved valuers say her
property is worth.
-------------------------
Four cases involving Urimbirra Village, relating to service and maintenance
fees and alleged failures by Milstern to provide accounting
records, are before
the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal.
Urimbirra residents claim
Milstern has bought
back the leases of at least 30 of the 49 units in the
complex. Some believe
Milstern may want to buy all the leases so the site can be
redeveloped.
But Milstern's owner, Millie Phillips, said
some residents had affected the village's reputation through
complaints to
the State Office of Fair Trading and Minister for Justice
Kerry Shine.
``There is a mile of documents of
complaints
and the complaints have no basis and now no one wants to buy
there. They
are like the animal that eats its own entrails and now they
want me to come
in and buy their places from them. I'm not obligated to look
after their
financial affairs,'' Ms Phillips said.
The property of a 98-year-old
dementia patient
is at the centre of one dispute with Milstern. Eunice Holland
and her late
husband James bought a 99-year lease in Urimbirra village in
1993 for $76,000.
------------------------
Although property values in the area have soared, Milstern offered $55,000
for Mrs Holland's unit in 2006, according to her son, Jim. An
independent valuation
by a valuer approved by the Office of Fair Trading in March
2005 had estimated
the property to be worth as much as $120,000, documents show.
Buyback is unfair,
says son - Woman,
98, offered half price for
retirement unit Sunday
Mail June 8, 2008
Overview
Residents believe that not only has Milstern breached
the regulations but that
the regulations
do not adequately protect residents. They have pressed politicians and the
minister to make changes but without
any success.
The residents believe that for many years Milstern has
wanted to deregister the village and then
cash in on the Hervey Bay property boom by developing the site.
They believe
that they have been put under pressure
to induce them to sell out. Milstern
has made little effort to sell vacant units. It has made the
village unattractive
for buyers by not maintaining it.
Residents received an offer of purchase which
they considered an unrealistically low
figure, well below market value. They believed that the
purchaser was Milstern
itself. Some residents agreed to
sell the units to Milstern
and then rented
them from Milstern to live in. By 2008 only 13 resident owners remain as
Milstern purchased almost all of
the remaining units and
rented them out.
Tenants were given access to all of the complex's facilities and services
but were not bound by the community's
rules.
The Tribunal's December 2008 Decision
The residents have fought these issues through a
multitude of tribunal required
but fruitless
mediations and directed hearings prior to evidence being heard by
the Commercial
and Consumer Tribunal
(CCT)
in August
2008. In December 2008 the CCT handed down a decision
in which virtually all of the
orders sought
by the resident owner's were upheld. The residents have applied for costs
against Milstern.
The comments made by the tribunal in its decision speak
for their view of the sort of person Ms
Phillips is, the sort of people who work with her, and the way in which the
company Milstern operates. These
comments, when seen in the
context of many
other reports over the years go to the heart of the problem of suitability
and of probity of aged care
operators and owners.
Consider the tribunal's comments. Set these against Ms
Phillips' comments only 6 months earlier
and decide for yourself whether these are the sort of people who should be
caring for the frail elderly in
their final years. To explore
the resident's
story in greater depth and read the tribunal's comments download
their decision. by
clicking the link.
|
June 2008 Ms
Phillips criticises residents
|
"There is a mile of
documents of complaints
and the complaints have no basis and now no
one wants to buy there. They are like the animal that eats its
own entrails
and now they want me
to come
in and buy their places from them. I'm not
obligated to look after their financial affairs,'' Ms Phillips said.
Buyback is unfair, says son -
Woman, 98, offered half price for retirement
unit Sunday Mail June 8, 2008
|
Dec 2008 The CCT
decision and criticisms
|
EXTRACTS ONLY.
For a complete copy of the decision click
here
Nature of the petition
2 The amended
statement of claim filed I November 2007 raised
three broad claims against the respondent: a refund of GST, breaches
of the lease
and/or residence contract and a failure
to provide
financial documentation. The amended statement of claim sought orders as
restated in a document
handed to the Tribunal at the commencement of the
hearing. The orders the applicants
seek are: “
(1) That the respondent
refund the sum of $1,000.65 to each
resident
(2) That the respondent provide to
the applicants a copy of
the financial
records (including copies
of invoices)
for each of the financial
years commencing
from 1
July 2000 30 June 2008 relating to
each of the accounts being
general services
fund, maintenance reserve
fund and capital
replacement fund.
(3) That the respondent
provide to the applicants a
reconciliation for each of the financial years
commencing from 1 July 2000
to 30 June 2008 in respect of the Ledger account
and the bank
balance for each of the
accounts being the maintenance reserve fund and the
capital replacement fund.
(4) That the respondent provide to the applicants a reconciliation
of maintenance reserve fund
and the capital replacement fund accounts plus
copies of bank statements
showing operating and closing balance and transactions
for
each of the financial years
between the period 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2008.
(5) That the budgets for the period 2003/2004 to 2006/2007 be
set aside as
invalidly passed.
(6) That the respondent complies with
its duties under the
Retirement Villages
Act,
and the public information documents and
releases.”
-----------------------------------
Background
6 This claim followed a long period of disputation between the
applicants and the respondent regarding
the financial accounts of the village
and an alleged
failure by the respondent to provide
documentation to prove expenditure
that the respondent claimed the
applicants were obliged to pay.
-----------------------
7 In or about May 2005, the applicants served
on the respondent a Notice
of Dispute pursuant to section 154 of
the Act. On the 8 July 2005 a mediation
conference was held, an agreement was
reached and this agreement became
an order of the Tribunal on the 15
December 2005. The applicants alleged
that the terms of this agreement have
been breached.
-------------------------
Respondent’s position
9 The respondent denied that the financial statements
were inadequate, said the statutory
requirements were complied with and that
copies of all documents have
been provided.
--------------------------------
Observations and Findings
-----------------------------------
Order 1: GST – that each
resident should receive a GST
refund of $1,065.00
-----------------------
20 Furthermore, the applicants submitted that
the calculations undertaken by the accountant,
Mr Thomson (auditors for Milstern),
were flawed and contained numerous inaccuracies.
We find
that the methodology used to calculate the
refunds contained
inconsistencies, was arbitrary and the Tribunal
also has no confidence that the calculations
by Mr Barnes, the
respondent’s (Milstern) accountant,
were accurate.
----------------------
23 As the GST money was paid pursuant to a
mistake, it should
be refunded in full: per David Securities Pty
Ltd v Commonwealth Bank (1992)
175 CLR 353
---------------------------
Orders 2 - 4: Financial
records
27 - - - - - -These orders arise from the complaints
about the financial
records especially the GSF, MRF and the
CRF. The applicants are seeking copies
of financial records for each of the
financial years 2000 through to 2008
for the GSF, MRF and CRF; a
reconciliation in respect of the ledger account
and the bank balance for the MRF and
the CRF for the same period and a
reconciliation of the MRF and CRF; plus
copies of the bank statements showing
opening and closing balances for the
relevant periods.
----------------------------
30 Mr Barnes conceded that a balance sheet listing
the assets and liabilities including
accumulated debts had not been prepared
for the village. He made
the surprising statement that the
village did not have any assets to record.
This is an extraordinary statement in
light of the statutory requirements
to have a MRF and CRF, which are
assets, and the village has many smaller
items such as lawn mowers, garden
equipment and office equipment. Even
in the absence of assets, section 113
(1) (c) of the Act mandates that
such a document be prepared. Also, an
income and expenditure statement
for the CRF and MRF, (section 113
(1)(a)) and an expenditure statement
for the GSF, (section 112 (2) (b)),
must be prepared. Profit and loss accounts
and balance sheets were prepared by the
respondent for its entire operation
in both New South Wales and elsewhere,
but a compliant profit and loss
statement and balance sheet were not
created for the village as required
by section 113 of the Act.
------------------------------
36 - - - - - - Mr Barnes had difficulty
following his own
accounts and he could not explain many of
the items listed. It is no wonder
Mr Sheppard and the residents could not
understand the accounts.
-------------------------------
38 We have closely examined the accounts of
the MRF and CRF and confirm that
they were difficult to understand, were
not self-explanatory and they did
not follow one year to the next as the
closing balance was not carried forward
to be the opening balance for the next
year. The amount in the accounts varied
from year to year without explanation.
39 The
evidence about how decisions were made and communicated to head
office about the allocation of expenses
to the GSF, the MRF or CRF was
extraordinary. - - - - - .
----------------------
41 This procedure was amateurish, unprofessional and
confusing. The mixing of MRL accounts
and other accounts was unsatisfactory,
improper and a breach of
the provisions of the Act.
----------------------------
43 - - - - - - Mr Barnes initially said these
accounts were styled trust
accounts but after he was shown bank
statements without this style he conceded
the accounts were general bank accounts
and not trust accounts. He
conceded that he had no knowledge of
the requirements of the Trusts Act
1973 and
was not aware of the requirements of
sections 95 and 101 of the Act: that
a scheme operator must not invest an
amount standing to the credit of the
CRF and MRF other than in authorised
investments under the Trusts Act 1973.
44 The
evidence of all the witnesses for the respondent
was unsatisfactory when it came to
compliance issues. It is clear that
Mr Barnes, Mrs Phillips and Mr Garvin
had limited knowledge of the
requirements of the Act and it is clear the
Act has not been complied with.
45 We find
that Mr Sheppard (resident) was a reliable witness
and we accept
his evidence in its entirety.
46 We accept
the evidence of Mr Sheppard that he had
attempted to obtain copies of documents
and these have not been provided
and it is understandable why
he could not understand the accounts on
the information provided. We accept
the evidence of Mrs Phillips that
documents relating to financial years
before 2003/2004 have been damaged,
destroyed or lost and cannot now be
produced, but we will order that a copy
of the financial records for each
financial year commencing from 1 July
2003 be produced to the solicitors
for the applicants.
47 The
applicants have raised issues other than those discussed that concern
compliance with the Act. We have not
considered all these issues as we
are satisfied that there has been
substantial non-compliance with the Act.
The applicants are entitled to the
orders sought for the year commencing
I July 2003 and thereafter.
48 We find
that the respondent has failed to provide
to the applicants financial records for
each of the years commencing 1
July 2003 to and including
30 June 2008 relating to each of the
GSF, MRF and CRF, including copies
of invoices and documents substantiating
each item in the funds.
------------------------------
Order 5: Budgets
51 The credit
of Mr Garvin and Mrs Phillips is seriously compromised when
a letter dated 17 May 2007 and signed
by Millie Phillips is considered.
This letter provides:
“ I hereby give my proxy vote
for each of the above units to
Jim Garvin who has been instructed to vote in favour of
passing budgets
as presented to the village for the years 2003/2004,
2004/2005, 2005/2006,
2006/2007.”
52 This was a purported
attempt by Mrs Phillips to give Mr Garvin her proxy vote with respect
to all the units
that were
owned by MRL, in order
to pass budgets for four (4) financial years
in the face of the refusal of residents to pass those budgets. Both Mrs
Phillips and Mr Garvin were
at pains to submit that the vote was not taken
and this document was not prepared as a proxy vote: Milstern Retirement
Services Pty Ltd v
Sheppard & Royce [2006] CCT
VH012-05. We reject
their evidence in its entirety with respect to
this issue as the document speaks for
itself.
-----------------------------
54 The applicants submitted that the budgets
have been invalidly prepared.
We accept this submission and find
that the budgets are prepared inaccurately
and incorrectly. For some items Mr
Barnes adopted the proposed budget
item and for other items it was based on
the actual costs.
55 It is
accepted that the budgets for the relevant years were not passed,
so we do not consider it necessary to
make an order that the budgets
be set aside as being invalidly
passed. We consider that the respondent
is incapable of recasting the budgets
and it will be necessary for an
independent accountant to be
appointed to undertake this task, and we
will so order.
Order 6: That the
respondent complies with its other duties under the
Act
56 The
applicants maintained that the respondent has infringed other
provisions
of the Act, has unlawfully tenanted the
units and unlawfully claimed a
management fee.
57 The respondent is
obliged to comply with all the provisions of the Act
- - - - .
58 Accordingly, it is
not necessary to consider whether there has been
compliance in these other regards with the
Act.
Orders
59 The Tribunal orders will be:
1. The respondent will refund
to respective
applicants the sum of $396.70 in
respect of each of the applicants’ units
by, 4:00pm on 23 of
January 2009.
2. The respondent will provide
to the
applicants’ solicitor
a copy of the financial records
(including copies of invoices)
for each
of the financial years commencing
from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2008
relating to each of the accounts,
being General Services
Fund, Maintenance
Reserve
Fund and Capital Replacement Fund
by, 4:00 pm on 23
January 2009.
3. The respondent will provide to
the applicants’ solicitor a
reconciliation for each
of the financial
years, commencing from 1 July 2003
to 30
June 2008, in respect of the ledger
account and the bank balance for
each of the accounts,
being the Maintenance
Reserve Fund and the Capital
Replacement Fund by, 4:00pm on 23
January 2009.
4. The respondent will provide to
the applicants’ solicitor a
reconciliation of the Maintenance
Reserve Fund and the
Capital Replacement
Fund accounts
plus copies of bank
statements showing
operating and closing balance and
transactions for each of
the financial
years commencing from 1 July
2003 to 30 June 2008 by, 4:00 pm
on 23 January 2003
(mistyped in original
- should be 2009).
5. The applicants will appoint an
independent accountant, as agreed
by the parties, and
failing agreement
as appointed by the Tribunal, to
re-cast, at the expense
of the respondents,
the budgets for each year
commencing
1 July 2003 until
today’s date.
6. The independent accountant will
be provided by the
applicants’ solicitors
with the financial
material referred
to in orders 2, 3 and 4 above.
7. If the independent accountant
requests a bond for security for
its fees the security is to be
paid forthwith by the respondent
into the
trust account of the solicitors for
the applicants to be held by the
applicants’ solicitor
pending completion of the
work of re-casting
the budgets.
Commercial and Consumer Tribunal
: Decision/VH009-07 Delivered
at Brisbane December 18, 2008
(Added
July 2010) The Association
of Residents of Queensland Retirement Villages in September
2008 refer
to trusting/gullible retirees being duped by an unscrupulous operator.
At a June 2008 Ministerial Working Party, Aged Care Queensland
(for operators),
The Association of Residents, and the Office of Fair Trading united in an
attempt to solve the problem at Urimbirra Village. They planned to develop
a comprehensive case "against this recalcitrant operator,
aimed at securing
enforceable Orders
- - - - which would mean severe financial penalties."
The importance and wider relevance
of these criticisms
In spite of the repeated complaints by residents to a multitude of
agencies and to politicians, in spite of the support of their
representative
body,
and in spite of the findings of a previous tribunal, no
action has been taken
to penalise Milstern and its owner or to require them to
meet their obligations
to residents under the act. There have been no suggestions
that authorities
will act now. We may well ask how likely it is that
Milstern will meet
its requirements when there is no enforcement?.
Milstern
also owns
and operates nursing homes. One must
question whether
it is acceptable for owners
like this
to have control over the care of our
frail and vulnerable
citizens. Under the pre-1997 regulations such credible criticism would
have gone
to the suitability
of
the current
owner, and
the
company's
probity. As I understand it there were once powers
that permitted the authorities to step in.and act to address such issues
and protect residents. The department boasted to me about them in 1994.
These were removed in 1997.
In 1999 Ms Alison Rosevear from the aged
care department
of health and ageing assured me that the aged care
act 1997 was intended to ensure that only "suitable
people" cared
for the aged. It did not do so. In 2007 the then minister for
health, the Hon
Tony Abbott MP also undertook to make changes to ensure
that this was so but lost power before doing so.
There have been multiple allegations
and reports about Ms Phillips' activities,
about her public
statements, and about problems at Milstern owned facilities
over many years.
While they are representative of market practices. these must raise
very serious
concerns about the suitability of both to operate nursing
homes and retirement villages.
As a community we should expect a track record like
this to be investigated. If the criticisms
are valid then we would expect the necessary steps be
taken to protect residents by removing Milstern and its owner from the
register
of
approved providers.
This would also send a clear message
to other operators that the community will not tolerate operators who
place commercial
interests ahead of their responsibilities to the
community and their
humanitarian obligations to the elderly. Because of the inadequacy
of our regulations
and the failure
of
enforcement
these operators
have been getting the very opposite message for years. We
need to make
it very clear that competing fiduciary responsibilities to owners and
shareholders must
not override or compromise these responsibilities to the community and its
members.
It is unconscionable that elderly citizens in their
80's and 90's, many of them frail and with declining mental
capacity, should
be treated like
this; and then left to fight through a multitude of complex processes and
regulatory bodies in order to establish their right to fair treatment. This
imposes enormous stresses on them and destroys the quality of their lives.
As a community we should hang our heads in shame.
The New Regulatory Morass
In
December 2008 the aged care regulations were revised. The new minister
claims that they give more attention to the suitability of owners as well
as better regulation of managers and operators. I found this
legislation confusing
and difficult to understand.
It
is unclear to me whether it has now addressed
the problems
posed by "unsuitable" operators and who in the department
has responsibility
for this.
Milstern will be a critical test case for
the new bill.
If the federal department of health and ageing is unable
to examine the damning Commercial and Consumer Tribunal's criticisms
and mount
an
investigation
into
Milstern's
suitability to be an approved provider then the revised
legislation will be shown to be almost as ineffective as the
act it amended.
An applicants
unsuitability is often not apparent when it enters the
market in decrepitude. This only becomes evident later.
UPDATE February
2010 Urimbirra Village
Milstern and the approved
provider process
In December 2008
the Minister for Ageing succeeded in passing amendments to the aged care act
1997 through parliament. These she claimed would
give attention to the important role that owners played and
so further
protect
nursing homes. How such complex legislation would work was far from
clear. There seemed to be numerous loopholes which allowed
unsuitable operators
to be responsible for residents. To test the scope of this
legislation
an objection was lodged with the Nursing Home Approved
Provider authority
to both Milstern and Ms Phillips’ approved provider status.
From
the response it can be deduced that the authorities were
not empowered
to consider any conduct except that directly related to nursing home
ownership. Residents therefore continue to be at the
mercy of people
whose conduct
elsewhere suggests that they might pose an unacceptable risk to
residents.
CLICK HERE to read more and
review the correspondence
MILSTERN’ RETIREMENT
VILLAGE MAY BE LIQUIDATED
In spite
of the damning
findings of the Tribunal in December 2008 in the Urimbirra case Millie
Philip and her company have continued to procrastinate and
ignore deadlines
and correspondence from the tribunal. Costs were awarded against her.
Court deadlines for responding have gone by and
the
legal system has granted endless extensions. The authorities
charged with
protecting the rights and interests of residents seem to have fallen over
backwards to protect
Ms Phillips
and allowed the dispute to drag on for another year.
The appointment
of an independent forensic accountant was frustrated for months
and the court was
forced
to
appoint one to recast financial accounts and budgets
from the year
2003 onwards. Practically no records have been given to this accountant
so the whole process has stalled since 2008.
The residents
were required
to go through repeated mediation processes. In July 2009 a
number of side
issues were resolved. Milstern Retirement
Services
agreed to repay back moneys related to claimed rate
paying and
payroll tax irrgularities by Milstern. The residents agreed to forgo a
minor claim
regarding electricity and ambulance levies. A
serious complaint
relating to alleged
illegal rental of units by Milstern could not be resolved and
is still before the courts. It has dragged on into 2010 with no date
set for resolution.
One of the
resident’s
families and the Association of Residents of Queensland
Retirement Villages
(ARQRV) was threatened with a defamation action after informtion
was given to the ARQRV
and this was published on their web site. Ms Phillips sought out
a new lawyer
to do
this, a lawyer recently reprimanded and suspended
from practice
for 4 months by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Charges of
“professional
misconduct” and “unprofessional
conduct” had been established. (Legal
Services Commissioner
v McClelland [2006] LPT 13)
Miss Phillips
has sent out flyers and done letter box drops
across the state attacking the Queensland
government and its
legal system.
One can
only wonder
what she possibly hoped to gain by this.
Open letter from
Ms Phillip
|
Notice of Application
for winding up
Courier Mail 30/31 January 2010
|
Milstern
Retirement Services
failed to pay the residents the costs awarded by the court. In January
2010 the residents lodged
an
application
for
the winding up of Milstern in Insolvency. It owes them $57,184
which Milstern
Retirement Village had been ordered to pay by the Commercial and Consumer
Tribunal in October 2009. The case is to be heard in February
2010.
There is
reason to believe
that Milstern Retirement Villages has sold some if not all of its other
Retirement Villages which are in NSW
to Meridien.
The deal was delayed by the economic downturn but now seems to
have gone through. Urimbirra Village may be the company’s
only remaining
asset. Milstern should be flush with funds and well able to pay
the residents rather
than be put into receivership.
Whether Milstern and
Ms Phillips have in some manner arranged for the money from the sale not
to be paid to
Milstern Retirement
Villages itself, and have stripped the company of assets remains
to be seen. In the USA organisations specialise in buying
companies, stripping
their
assets, and then allow debtors to put them into
liquidation. Debtors
and shareholders get nothing. Whether this can happen in Australia
and
has happened
in this case remains to be seen. The residents might get nothing
and be left with the huge legal costs of the cases. If this happens it
is
difficult not
to conclude that the agencies responsible for protecting residents
have colluded with the owner. They have failed to protect the residents
and
it looks as though they stood by as
residents were in effect defrauded.
Urimbirra
Update July 2010
Milstern pay's
up rather than wind up
I have learned that the
action to wind up Milstern was withdrawn when Milstern offered to settle
and paid the Urimbirra residents the $57,000
owed, plus $1800 interest and the $9000 costs for taking the case to the
Supreme Court.
The
Residents win on payments and rentals but Milstern
appeals
Millie
Phillips acknowledged
that she had purchased the Urimbirra Retirement Village because
the property
was valuable and could be developed more profitably.
She attempted to wind it down. This seemed to be a major loophole in the
law. Robin Lyons
used Urimbirra
as
a typical
example of the way in which owners exploited this loophole in section
3.1 of a paper he presented to the Retirement Villages
Association Conference
2009. The residents claimed that Milstern had allowed the village to
fall into disrepair, had not complied with accounting and record keeping
responsibilities. Outgoing
residents had no choice but to sell their units to Milstern for very low
amounts and Milstern was then renting them to casual tenants.
The act was
far from clear and Lyons indicated "that there is no clear
breach of the
Act as it is currently drafted on which the residents can take
action against
the operator. The operator is not attempting to terminate the residents'
rights to reside in the village, but rather to encourage
residents to leave
of their own volition and allow the operator to 'buy back' their rights
to reside at significantly deflated prices."
Lyons found
that the Office of Fair Trading took a very conservative approach
and would not interfere to protect residents rights. Few resident groups
would have the resources or the persistence to appeal to the Tribunal or
beyond.
Urimbirra it seems was
the exception. They took the latter to the tribunal and
succeeded.
During the mediation
process in 2009 Milstern agreed to pay all but one of the sums that the
residents claimed they were owed. The issue of
the
rental
of
units was not resolved and went to the tribunal.
The tribunal
agreed with
the residents and ordered Milstern not to rent the units
it owned as this was in contravention of the Retirement
Villages Act 1999. Milstern was required to ensure that
these tenants
"be removed from the Urimbirra Retirement Village
forthwith". Milstern were
required to pay the residents costs.
My information is that
Millie Phillips did not show up for the tribunal and so did not put her
case. She then claimed that she was injured and unwell
and did not know the day it was on. She was given leave to appeal and did
so. She has also failed to disclose new lease agreements that she
claimed in court had been signed with renters. She was ordered to
supply them but has not done so. The matter is to be heard again early in
August.
Lindfield Manor
Retirement Village
Dispute with residents:- There was a
dispute with residents at
Milstern's Lindfield Manor Retirement
Village and this
went to court. A politicians and the minister for fair
trading joined
in the
conflict. Judges decided in favour of the residents.
|
Nov 2005 Residents
get political support
|
HEAVY-HANDED and arrogant is how
Barry O'Farrell has described
the treatment of residents at Lindfield
Manor Retirement
Village.
The State Liberal MP for
Ku-ring-gai made a damning speech in
State Parliament earlier this
month after listening to residents' woes
about increases in levies
and alleged decreases in service.
Milstern Health Care manages the
village and Mr O'Farrell accused it of
unjustly raising its
monthly levies two years ago.
Mr O'Farrell said residents had
told him they were never informed that
Milstern had taken its case
to obtain the increase of $25 a week for
each of the 44 units in
the village to the NSW Consumer, Trader
and Tenancy
Tribunal.
This would bring monthly levies
to $1160 a resident, he said.
"Residents were not present
because they were not told the hearing
was on," Mr O'Farrell
said.
-------------------------
Mr O'Farrell said residents also had said services such as
afternoon tea and a monthly bus excursion had
been cut.
Mr O'Farrell's speech enraged
Milstern's retirement services principal
Millie Phillips who has
called for his resignation.
"He has ridden roughshod over
all of this and he has misled parliament," she
said.
Mrs Phillips said "99 per cent"
of Mr O'Farrell's allegations were false and any complaints have
come from only two residents.
She said resident committees had
access to all of the village's financial
documents and it took up
to 18 months to negotiate how the money would
be spent.
She said her next action would
be to prepare a detailed written
response to Mr O'Farrell's
allegations.
O'Farrell blasts rise in levies North Shore Times November
18, 2005 ----- CLICK
HERE TO LINK TO THE SPEECH IN NSW HANSARD 8th Nov
2005
|
Dec 2005 Minister
for fair trading helps residents
|
THE Fair Trading Minister has
joined a legal
battle launched earlier this year by residents of Lindfield
Manor Retirement
Village.
Diane Beamer announced her
office would pay for counsel to
represent the residents in a
Supreme Court appeal by the village's
operator, Milstern Health
Care.
The residents challenged a
series of additional budget expenditures
from Milstern during the
fiscal years of 2004 and 2005.
The two camps faced off in May
in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy
Tribunal, over last year's
charges and the residents won an order
for Milstern to repay
$70,500 of additional charges in the form of cost
overruns.
Most of the budget blowout
originated from wages paid to kitchen staff.
-------------------------
"In the circumstances I am satisfied it should not be left to the
elderly residents to defend the action
commenced by the operator,"
she said.
In the meantime, a similar case
was heard before the Tribunal over
blowouts to the 2005 budget for
which Milstern also assessed the village's
residents.
The tribunal in November ruled
again in the resident's favour and
ordered Milstern to repay the
residents a total of $73,000.
------------------------------
Milstern must pay by December 31 but its principal Millie Phillips
said her company would lodge a similar
appeal to the Supreme Court
and hopes the two cases can be heard as one.
She said Milstern has done
everything to conserve costs in light of
residents'
demands.
Regarding the kitchen staff
wages, hiring people for two hours a day
to serve meals would be
near impossible to find, she said.
"Now they say we shouldn't have
so many people in the kitchen but they
have demanded so," Mrs
Phillips said.
Minister joins residents' fray North Shore Times December
7, 2005
|
Sept 2006 Appeal
court supports residents
|
Residents of Lindfield Manor
retirement village won a court
battle last week against the village's
operator Milstern
Retirement Services. - - - - - - -
Milstern's appeal to the
Supreme Court was dismissed.
Big win for residents North Shore Times September 20, 2006
CLICK
HERE TO GO TO THE DEBATE ON THIS IN NSW
HANSARD
20 SEPT 2006
(search
for Milstern)
The NSW Office of Fair Trading has supported
the residents and funded them in the Supreme Court appeal by
Milstern.
PRESS
RELEASE BY THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING 14 September
2006
This nursing home was sold to Meridien in
2009.
A dispute about Kitchen Expenses (Added July
2010)
There
was an interesting dispute about kitchen expenses at Lindfield manor
reported in the Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal
Bulletin in October
2006 - item 5. It seems that Milstern claimed $150,544 for kitchen wages
(I am not clear who this was from - presumably residents). The tribunal
considered
this
excessive and allowed $100,000, requiring Milstern to pay the
extra $50,000. Milstern appealed. It made multiple claims including
an apprehension
of bias and that its representative, Mr Barnes had no legal expertise and was
not given a reasonable
opportunity to marshall evidence. This seems to be an ongoing
strategy.
The Justice
reviewed the course of the earlier Tribunal proceedings and found
that Barnes had been given ample opportunity.and found that
"the submission
that there was an apprehension of bias failed".
to
contents
The
Nursing Homes
Allegations about the company's nursing homes
were aired in the press and in parliament
starting in 2000. These
were based on accreditation agency reports.
All were denied and
disputed by the persons mentioned.
|
Jul 2001 Allegations
of profiting by reducing staff
|
The Sydney nursing home
under scrutiny over its care standards sliced
almost 10 per cent
from its wages bill as revenue boomed,
internal documents
show.
-----------------------------
Now leaked figures from Mrs Phillips's company, Milstern Health
Care Pty Ltd, have revealed the company
significantly cut staffing
between 1997 and 2000 despite enjoying
increasing revenue which
would come primarily from government subsidies.
The figures show
that revenue at
the Yagoona home jumped from $6.2 million in
1997 to $6.7 million
up 8 per cent.
However, total
labour costs were
cut by 7.4 per cent, from $4.5 million to $4.2
million.
There were similar
cuts at the
group's other homes, The Ritz and Curie
Nursing Home.
The Yagoona home hit the
headlines after the Aged Care Standards and
Accreditation Agency
overturned a recommendation from its assessors
that the home's
accreditation be revoked because of poor care
standards. This
prompted the questions about Mrs Phillips's
links with the
Liberals.
The staffing
figures tally with
the original reports of agency assessors at
Yagoona who reported
that ``(the owner of the home) has been
requesting that staff
numbers decrease, and that the specialty
(part-time) positions
such as education and infection control also be
decreased''.
``The (owner)
informed the team
that casual staff were not to be employed. She
stated that staff
had to become permanently employed if they
wished to remain at the
service.''
The assessors said there were
``appropriately skilled and qualified staff
sufficient to ensure
that quality care was given'' but there was an
``unpleasant work
environment'' and that documentation and
interviews ``reveal an
environment of harassment from the approved
provider throughout
the organisation''.
The internal documents report
that roster savings at Yagoona since May last
year include cuts in
educators, nurses and cooks, and that the
first staff member to
phone in sick on each shift except night shift
is not replaced.
The savings are estimated at $72,291 a year.
Two calls to Milstern Health
Care Pty Ltd by the Herald were not returned.
Staff Cut As Aged Home Profits Rose Sydney Morning Herald
July 10, 2001
|
Jun 2001 Allegations
about friends in the right places
|
But the criticism of Mr
Lang's appointment accompanied revelations that a Sydney
nursing home had escaped imposition of sanctions by the ACSAA,
despite the
highly controversial deaths of two patients.
The home is one of two such
institutions operated by a firm owned by Mrs
Millie Phillips,
another friend of the Minister and Liberal Party
contributor.
Staff and others had made
repeated and long-standing complaints about
substandard facilities
and treatment regimes at both homes which had
failed to pass
accreditation tests by the end of last year.
However, ACSAA assessors are
said to have told the staff of one of the
homes that "the owner
knows people, nothing will be done". Both
homes were subsequently
given generous reprieves of several months to achieve
accreditation standard.
Aged care scandals erupt again The Guardian June 27,
2001
to
contents
The Ritz Nursing
Home
|
Dec 2000
Accreditation status threatened
|
The future of one of NSW's
biggest nursing homes is in jeopardy after it
was told it would
fail accreditation unless it made major
improvements in the next
three weeks.
--------------------------------
Residents and relatives will be told officially today or tomorrow
that Mrs Millie Phillips, proprietor of
Milstern Health Care Ltd,
has been put on notice to improve the home by
December 31 or fail
accreditation.
----------------------------------
While patient care at the privately run Ritz is considered
acceptable, the home's physical environment was found
unacceptable. This covers matters such as the
provision of a safe
and comfortable living environment, infection
control, catering,
cleaning and laundry services, and fire and security
systems.
A
``site audit'' report was made
in August, and the department has visited
several times since. The
Federal Department of Health and Aged Care is
writing to inform
residents and relatives, and to reassure them
that contingency
plans are being made.
Mrs Phillips could not be
contacted. But a Milstern spokeswoman said
``both the department
and the company are committed to maintaining
the excellence of
patient care. The department has been
supportive, and our current
discussions involve significant extensions.''
It is believed carpenters are
working at The Ritz, which Milstern has owned
since 1972.
Mrs Phillips met departmental
representatives on Monday. ``It appears she is
not going to throw
in the towel,'' a department spokesman said.
``It is still open to her to
convince the [Aged Care Standards and]
Accreditation
Agency that she can achieve the standards.''
Putting Heat On The Ritz, A Nursing Home In Peril Sydney
Morning Herald December 6, 2000
|
Feb 2001 Half the
staff lodge a complaint
|
More than
70 staff at a Sydney nursing home have
written to the Federal Government's
nursing home complaints body to express a lack of faith
in their proprietor.
The unprecedented action by more
than half the staff comes on top of a Federal
audit of The Ritz
Nursing Home in Leura that refers to an ``environment of
harassment'', staff claims of verbal abuse by
management, and a
long history of underspending on the home.
---------------------------
Dilapidated furniture, grey sheets and small, cramped wards that
``compromise resident safety'', along with a
long list of serious
building problems, were detailed in a report
by the Private Health
Care Branch of the NSW Health Department late last
year.
The lighting was poor, the
floors unsafe, and the food servery was
``extremely dirty''. As
well, there were not enough hand basins to
ensure sound infection
control.
Commonwealth documents revealed
further problems ``which would have required a
long period to
develop or have existed for a long period''.
Among them, according
to the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation
Agency, resident call
bells were broken, there were not enough
toilets or bathrooms, and
food was served cold because of a lack of proper
equipment.
Staff requests for essential
items were ignored over a long period, the
Commonwealth auditors
reported in January. And major suppliers of
food, bed linen and
hardware had on occasions last year stopped
deliveries to the Ritz
because of unpaid accounts.
------------------------------------
In granting the Ritz a reprieve, the Department of
Health and Aged
Care noted that residents were not in
immediate or severe risk,
and that nursing care was satisfactory. Mrs Phillips was
undertaking ``significant work'' to address
problems. It also
cited the difficulties of relocating the
residents, many of whom
had behavioural problems.
----------------------------------
Mrs Phillips has vowed to try again, saying her company will
``invest $2 million to build a new wing'', and
that the issues
will be rectified by early March.
However, Ritz staff who wrote to
the Commonwealth's new Nursing Home Complaints
Resolution Scheme
in December are concerned that management
style and systems will
not change, even if the building is repaired.
As well, documents from
Commonwealth audit inspections reveal the Ritz failed
accreditation in December because of a long history of
underspending on the home's residents and
infrastructure.
Officials doubted Mrs Phillips's plans to
improve resident living
standards ``could be relied upon'' to ensure
accreditation
``within an acceptable time frame''.
Mr Ross Bushrod, the State
manager of the Accreditation Agency, concluded
in a report late
last year that management was ``not actively
working to provide a
safe working environment''. He was concerned
that ``after the
currently planned remedies are implemented, other
similar
deficiencies will occur without proper
management attention''. He
cited, for example, the ``systemic failure to
meet necessary
repairs, maintenance, and standards'' in the
kitchen until
regulatory authorities demanded them.
---------------------------------
As well, the report by the Victorian-based auditors cites staff
complaints about ``an environment of
harassment''. Some felt
victimised if they drew attention to
problems.
Mrs Phillips told the Herald she
had instituted legal action against the aged
care consultancy IBIS
which had managed her nursing homes for two
years. Her two other
nursing homes had received three-year
accreditation. On her style
of management, she said: ``Many of my staff
have been with me for
more than 30 years. If an `environment of
harassment' existed, why
would these people remain in my employment?''
Putting Down The Ritz: Aged Home's Chorus Of Critics
Sydney
Morning Herald February 21, 2001
|
Jun 2001 Given a
reprieve
|
The Ritz nursing home in
Leura, which she has owned for 30 years, was
one of two homes in
NSW to have failed to pass new nursing home
accreditation
standards by the December 31 deadline. At the
last minute, it was
given a six-month reprieve along with 19 other
homes nationwide,
and yesterday was granted accreditation for a
20-month period.
Grieving son says nursing home let his mother down Sydney
Morning Herald June 21, 2001
|
Jun 2001 Problems
not localised to the Ritz
|
The Ritz, in Leura, which
she has owned for 30 years, was one of only
two homes in NSW to
have failed to meet accreditation standards by
the December 31
deadline. - - - The Commonwealth assessors
described a situation
similar to the story at Yagoona staff requests
for essential items
ignored over a long period, and longstanding
problems. Bushrod,
the agency's State manager, wrote in a report
last year about The
Ritz, that he was concerned that ``after the
currently planned
remedies are implemented, other similar
deficiencies will
occur''.
Handle With Care Sydney Morning Herald June 23,
2001
to
contents
The Yagoona Nursing
Home
|
Jun 2001 A reprieve
for a chronic offender
|
THE Yagoona Nursing Home
near Bankstown has been a problem home for
many years. In May 1996
the Herald listed it among the 25 worst homes
in the State, based
on reports by Federal inspectors. It failed 14
of 31 minimum-care
standards in the mid-'90s under the old system of
inspections.
It was overcrowded, depressing;
the main memory of this reporter, who visited
the facility then,
was the smell of urine. Later we learnt that a
good nursing home
does not smell of urine. Indeed the absence of
odour is a simple
test of a quality home.
----------------------
But good nursing care keeps bed sores to a minimum, and
infections
should be caught early. According to documents
from the State
Health Department, this was the second
incidence of severely
infected bed sores at Yagoona it had
investigated within 12
months.
----------------------
But the accreditation, granted in November, was conditional on
Phillips keeping her promises to fix several
outstanding problems,
including overcrowding and poor continence
management. When the
assessors returned in April, they found her
promises had not been
kept. - - - - - Staff complained they had to
use folded pillow
slips and old shirts between residents' legs
on occasions because
there were not enough quality pads. The
showers went cold after
9am because the hot water system had been
broken for two years,
and staff complaints ignored. The buzzer
system had been broken
for a long time, too, and staff had to ``yell
out'' if they
required help with a resident.
--------------------------
The assessors recommended the most serious action: - - - - ,
they advised accreditation be revoked
entirely. - - - - But this
never happened. The State manager of the
agency, Ross Bushrod,
used his authority to give her
(Phillips) in effect another
15 months to make good her promises.
Handle With Care Sydney Morning Herald June 23,
2001
|
Jun 2001 Political
donations
|
A
Sydney nursing home found to have
critical standards was not closed
down because the home's
operator donated $13,900 to the Liberal Party,
the opposition
alleged in Federal Parliament yesterday.
Labor health spokeswoman Jenny
Macklin said the home had failed four care
standards and breached
accreditation guidelines.
``Didn't your standards agency
find that residents suffered temperatures of
48 degrees in summer,
cold showers in winter, inadequate clinical
care, high rates of
falls and risk potential disaster in the event
of a fire?'' she
asked Aged Care Minister Bronwyn Bishop.
After an inspection in early
April the Aged Care Standards Agency gave the
home, operated by
Milstern Health Care, a ``critical'' rating
for its physical
environment and its staffing. It gave it an
``unacceptable''
rating on standards covering health and
personal care and resident
lifestyle. One staff member told the
inspectors that until
recently ``old shirts'' were used between the
legs of residents
because of a shortage of continence aids.
-----------------------------------
An agency spokeswoman said the recommendation to remove
accreditation was not followed because there
was no serious risk
to the care of residents and because
improvements were being
implemented.
The Labor allegation of
favorable treatment for the home drew an angry
response from the
government.
Mrs Bishop rejected allegations
that she had intervened in the case. ``I have
no power under the
legislation to intervene in any decision about
accreditation,''
she said.
But she said Milstern Health
Care donated $8000 to the Liberal Party in
1998-99 - ``at no stage
did this donation affect the agency's decision
about Yagoona
Nursing Home''. Another $5900 was donated in
1995-96, says
Labor.
Yagoona home owner Millie
Phillips told ABC Radio she had always given
money to the
Liberals. ``It's just a question of how much
and what my finances
were,'' she said. Mrs Phillips said she had
also given money to
the Labor Party, which she accused of using
her as a ``whipping
post''.
The Yagoona home had never been
threatened with closure, she said.
Labor Accuses Libs Over Donation The Age June 5,
2001
|
Jun 2001 Problem
home given 3 years accreditation
|
Mrs Bishop denied pressuring the Government's Aged
Care Standards
and Accreditation Agency. The director of
Milstern Health Care,
which operates Yagoona Nursing Home, Millie
Phillips, rejected the
claim donations had been made to curry favour.
The 150-bed home was granted
three years' accreditation last November but
the standards agency
revisited the home in March and found a
"critical" rating in two
health care standards.
Speaker risks job to protect Minister.
Courier Mail June 5,
2001
|
Jun 2001 Claims
about friendship with the minister
|
Mr
Smithers, a cancer patient, was
moved out a day after
being admitted
because his
daughter was concerned about his distress at the smell,
stained plastic food plates and
overcrowding.
Yagoona was raided twice at the
weekend by nursing home officials to check
whether it was
complying with undertakings given after
separate complaints.
-------------------------------------
On Sydney radio earlier yesterday, Mrs Bishop said she knew Mrs
Millie Phillips, a principal of the owners of
Yagoona, but she
knew nothing about the accreditation issues
concerning the home
until they were reported last week.
Death Camp Survivor Fled Aged Home Sydney Morning Herald
June 6, 2001
|
Jun 2001 Assessors
overruled by the agency
|
Mrs
Eileen Thomas spent
less than three
months in the Yagoona
Nursing Home
before she died
from blood poisoning caused by an infected bed sore.
----------------------
Mrs Thomas, 81, was the second Yagoona resident in 12 months to
have died from seriously neglected bed sores, Senator
Chris Evans, the Opposition spokesman on aged care,
told Parliament
yesterday.
------------------
It (NSW Health Department) found the same staff implicated. Three
nurses are under investigation by the NSW Health Care
Complaints Commission.
But Mr Thomas wants Yagoona's
owner to take responsibility. "The people
running it should be out
of there," he said, "and someone put in who cares."
-------------------
The Yagoona nursing home was given an extra 15 months to improve
standards, despite a damning report in April
by assessors from the
Aged Care Standards Agency. The assessors
recommended Yagoona's
accreditation be revoked - which would stop
the flow of millions
of dollars in Federal subsidies - but the
agency's State manager,
Mr Ross Bushrod, did not accept the
recommendation.
The assessors found Mrs Phillips
had failed to keep earlier assurances to
improve Yagoona's
standards. For two years, she had ignored
staff complaints about a
broken water heater; staff had used
pillowslips because of an
inadequate supply of continence aids; call
bells were broken; and
there were a "large number of skin tears on
residents".
Mr Thomas was unenthusiastic
about Yagoona from the start. He said the
smell of urine wafted
into the car park, but he was under pressure
to move his mother
from Westmead Hospital, where she had been
treated for injuries
suffered in a fall. "It came down to two
homes with
vacancies," he said.
-------------------
But according to a letter to Mrs Phillips from NSW
Health, nursing
staff failed to recognise Mrs Thomas's
deteriorating condition,
heralded by increased temperature and falling
blood pressure. They
failed to notify her doctor or her son until
after she was
admitted to hospital.
----------------------
Mrs Phillips could not be contacted yesterday.
Grieving son says nursing home let his mother down Sydney
Morning Herald June 21, 2001
|
Jun 2001 The
allegations about ministerial interference
|
The
latest furore was triggered by
the failure of the
agency to close
the Yagoona
Nursing Home, in southwestern Sydney, despite the death
of Eileen Thomas from infected
pressure sores and warnings about
conditions
at the home up to 12 months before the death.
Mrs Bishop has rejected
allegations that Yagoona's owner, Millie
Phillips, had received
special treatment because she was a Liberal
Party donor. She has
also defended the reappointment of her former
campaign manager,
John Lang, to the board of the agency.
Crisis puts PM under pressure to sack Bishop. Australian
June 22, 2001
to
contents
Brief update Nov 2008
An
October
2008
report
refers
to
more
allegations
of bizarre behaviour - the sort of
insensitive behaviour
one
would
not
expect
from someone
working to serve
frail and elderly persons and their families in the
emotionally
wrenching
end
of
life
period - especially when there were allegations of
a
serious
medication
error
in
someone
still well enough and with sufficient
life prospects
to
justify
surgery.
This was the Yagoona Nursing Home again.
The inquest
has
been
adjourned
to
April 2009.
|
Oct 2008 Patient dies after
large insulin injection
|
DONALD FAIRBAIRN was only planning
to stay at Yagoona Nursing Home for
as long as it took to recuperate from one
operation and prepare for the
next,
before returning to live with his daughter.
As it happened, the diabetic
81-year-old was there less than three
days before he died after receiving
a lethal dose
of insulin. (The newspaper later
admitted this should not have been printed
as the cononer had yet to determine the
cause of death,)
In September 2006, Mr Fairbairn was
admitted to the nursing
home from Bankstown Hospital, where he
was meant to receive eight units
of insulin in the morning and six units
at night, a court heard yesterday.
But two days later a nurse
allegedly administered 10 times his correct
dose of insulin after incorrectly reading a
medication chart written up
by the
patient's general practitioner. That
chart has become the subject of
an inquest into Mr Fairbairn's death.
Glebe Coroner's Court was crowded
with barristers angling to deflect blame
from their clients - and implicitly
on to others - yesterday.
Nurse gave lethal dose of insulin, court hears
The
Sydney Morning Herald October 21 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nurse-gave-lethal-dose-of-insulin-court-hears/2008/10/20/1224351155248.htm
|
Oct 2008 Bizarre
behavior
|
THE owner of a nursing home that is
the subject of an inquest into the
death of one of its residents threatened one
of the witnesses due to give
evidence, the inquest heard yesterday.
------------------------------
Donald
Fairbairn died on September 23, 2006, aged
81, a day after a nurse at the
home injected him with 10 times his
prescribed dose of insulin. The coroner
is determining his cause of death.
--------------------------
"
When Ms Fairbairn told her that she was the daughter
of the deceased, [Mrs Phillips] is alleged to
have said: 'This is your fault
we're having this inquest. He was old and going
to die. You've got pro-bono lawyers.
You're not going to get any money - he was worth
nothing. He was old and sick
anyway.' "
After the inquest, Mrs Phillips
allegedly
physically barred Ms Fairbairn from
leaving the court and told her that
she was not welcome back at Yagoona
Nursing Home, where she has a casual job
singing to residents. She was told
that she would be escorted from the
premises if she came back.
-----------------------------
Mr MacPherson said that if true it was a serious matter
and made orders preventing
Mrs Phillips from attending the remainder of
the proceedings.
------------------------------
Witness abused, court told Sydney
Morning Herald October 24,
2008 http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/witness-abused-court-told/2008/10/23/1224351449277.html
Update July
2010
I
could
not
find
any
further
reports
about
Ms
Phillip's
alleged
altercation
with
Ms
Fairbairn
or
her
attendance
at
the
court.
One
wonders
how
likely
it
is
that
Ms
Fairbairn
would
have
made
this
up.
The
coroner's
findings
have
not
been
reported
in
the
press
but
I
have
been
able
to
track
the
Coroner's
report.
This
is
short
and
gives
only
the
findings.
I
find
that
Donald
Ian
Fairbairn
died
on
23
September
2006
at
Bankstown
Hospital
in
the
State
of
New
South
Wales
as
a
result
of
severe
hypoxia
due
to
bilateral
pneumonia
and
severe
ischaemic
heart
disease.
There
seem
to
have
been
serious
medication
problems
in
this
case.
The
Coroner
recommended
that
Yagoona
Nursing
Home
implement
procedures
to
prevent
mishaps
and
report
back
in
6
months.
(a)
All
detected
incidents
must
immediately
be
brought
to
the
attention
of
the
Director
of
Nursing,
the
Deputy
Director
of
Nursing
or
the
Registered
Nurse
in
charge.
The
Director
of
Nursing,
the
Deputy
Director
of
Nursing
or
the
Registered
Nurse
in
charge
is
then
to
notify
the
pharmacist,
or
the
treating
doctor,
or
an
after
hours
doctor
or
is
to
call
an
ambulance,
whichever
is
the
appropriate
course
of
action.
(b)
That
the
staff
record
the
medication
administered
to
residents
in
the
period
between
the
admission
of
a
resident,
and
the
drawing
up
of
a
medication
charge
by
a
doctor,
in
the
Progress
Notes
for
each
patient
each
time
the
medication,
referred
to
in
the
Discharge
Summary,
is
administered.
(c)
That
Yagoona
Nursing
Home
report
to
the
Coroner
within
six
months
of
these
recommendations
outlining
the
changes
implemented
as
a
result
of
this
Inquest
into
the
death
of
Donald
Ian
Fairbairn.
NEW
SOUTH
WALES
STATE
CORONER’S
COURT
Ref
No:
1488/06
The
information
released
does
not
indicate
what
the
medication
errors
were
that
gave
rise
to
these
requirements.
We
do
not
know
if
this
was
because
a
10X
dose
of
insulin
was
given
or
not.
We
do
not
know
what
the
medical
evidence
was.
Whether
a
10
times
dose
of
insulin
would
have
been
lethal
might
be
debated.
Immediate
treatment
with
sugar
should
have
been
given
and
would
have
been
life
saving
but
we
do
not
know
if
this
was
given.
Pneumonia
is
a
common
finding
at
postmortem
in
terminally
ill
patients.
There
are
no
postmortem
findings
after
an
overdose
of
insulin.
The
pneumonia
may
have
been
present
before
an
overdose
of
insulin
was
given,
but
prolonged
coma
from
an
overdose
of
insulin
might
well
be
complicated
by
pneumonia.
For Updates:- A good way to
check for
recent developments in aged care is to go to
the aged
care crisis group's search page and enter
the name of the company, nursing
home or key words relating to any other matter
in the search box. Most significant
press reports are flagged there. The aged
care crisis web site has recently been
restructured and some of the older
links used from this site may not
work.
top of
page
|
Web Page
History
This page created Sept 2006 by
Michael
Wynne
Revised and enlarged Mar 2007
Additions May 2007, Nov 2008, Jan 2009, Feb
2010, Jul 2010
|
|
|