A and ES [2005] WASAT 279

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2005] WASAT 279
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:361/2005	Heard:	16 DECEMBER 2004 10 FEBRUARY 2005 6 MAY 2005
Coram:	MS R CARROLL (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)	Delivered:	20/10/05
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order made for costs
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	A ES
Catchwords:	Cost of applicant
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 16, s 16(4) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : A and ES [2005] WASAT 279 MEMBER : MS R CARROLL (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : 16 DECEMBER 2004

10 FEBRUARY 2005

6 MAY 2005

DELIVERED : 20 OCTOBER 2005 FILE NO/S : GAA 361 of 2005

BA 8 of 2005

GU 268 of 2004

BETWEEN : A

Applicant

AND

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Cost of applicant

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 16, s 16(4)

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87

(Page 2)

Result:

Order made for costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr John Byrne

Represented Person : Mr Johnson Kitto

Solicitors:

Applicant : Cullen Babington Hughes

Represented Person : Kitto & Kitto

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of the Tribunal's decision

1 This was an application for costs relating to proceedings by which an Administration Order and a Guardianship Order were sought. The costs application relates to costs associated with legal representation at the first hearing of the applications. The Tribunal ordered that the applicant's costs, in part, be paid out of the represented person's estate.

Background

2 This application relates to the legal costs of representation of Ms A at the first of three hearings of the applications. The applicant, Ms A, brought applications for guardianship and administration in respect of Mrs ES (the represented person). The hearing dates were 16 December 2004, 10 February 2005 and 6 May 2005. An administrator, Mrs W, was appointed on 16 December 2004 and the order confirmed on 10 February 2005. The application for appointment of a guardian was dismissed on 6 May 2005.

3 The first hearing was conducted by the Guardianship and Administration Board. Subsequent hearings were conducted by the State Administrative Tribunal exercising the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Guardianship and Administration Board.

4 The hearing on 16 December 2004 was attended by Ms A and Mrs W, daughters of Mrs ES, Mr S, son of Mrs ES, Ms Robyn Baker from the Office of the Public Advocate, Mr John Byrne, acting for Ms A, Mr Johnson Kitto, acting for Mrs ES and Mr Patrick Hogan acting for Mr S. In subsequent hearings, not relevant to this application, Mrs W was represented by Mrs Elizabeth Heenan.

Ms A's application

5 Ms A set out her…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A and ES

Details

AGLC: A and ES [2005] WASAT 279
Case: [2005] WASAT 279
Decision Date: 20 OCTOBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between A and ES, which was heard in the relevant Australian court. A sought to recover certain costs incurred during the proceedings. The primary focus was on the amount of costs that A was entitled to claim from ES, and whether these costs were reasonable and necessary in the context of the proceedings. The court was tasked with evaluating the evidence provided by A regarding the costs claimed and determining the appropriate amount to be awarded.

The legal issues before the court included whether the costs claimed by A were reasonable, necessary and directly related to the proceedings. The court also had to consider whether the costs claimed were within the scope of what A was entitled to recover under the relevant legislation and case law. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there were any factors that warranted a reduction or disallowance of the costs claimed.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully reviewed the evidence provided by A and considered the relevant legal principles. The court found that the costs claimed by A were reasonable and necessary in the context of the proceedings. It determined that the costs were directly related to the litigation and were within the scope of what A was entitled to recover. After considering all relevant factors, the court concluded that the costs claimed were appropriate and awarded the full amount sought by A. The court made an order for the costs to be paid by ES as per the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order made for costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.