AA - [2025] WASAT 2 (S)

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   AA [2025] WASAT 2 (S)
MEMBER:   MS V HAIGH, MEMBER
HEARD:   DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED          :   11 JUNE 2025
FILE NO/S:   GAA 3770 of 2023
GAA 4202 of 2024
GAA 4816 of 2023
AA
Represented Person
S1
Applicant

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Application for legal costs from the represented person's estate - Section 16(4) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) - Application for legal costs from interested parties - Section 87 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) - Significant family conflict - Whether costs orders should be made

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 16, s 16(4), s 16(5)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87, s 87(1), s 87(2)

Result:

Costs awarded in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	N/A

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

Chew and Director General of the Department of Education and Training [2006] WASAT 248
GB [2020] WASAT 61 (S)
J & P Metals Pty Ltd and Shire of Dardanup [2006] WA SAT 282 (S); (2006) 45 SR (WA) 242
LC and JS [2007] WASAT 127
PHQ and LPQ [2015] WASAT 5
PJC and RJC [2008] WASAT 224
Re WA and IA Ex Parte AA and JA [2011] WASAT 33
RK [2020] WASAT 53 (S)
Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32
Y and CO [2022] WASAT 166

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

On 3 January 2025 I determined three applications under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) in respect of AA, namely an application for the revocation of an enduring power of attorney (EPA), an application for revocation of an enduring power of guardianship (EPG) and an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator.
I made orders appointing the Public Trustee as plenary administrator and the Public Advocate as limited guardian (Orders). I revoked the EPA and the EPG. I published my reasons for making those Orders (Reasons). These reasons should be read in conjunction with those Reasons. I will use the same abbreviations for the parties as I used in the Reasons.
The three applications concerned AA and her three sons S1, S2 and S3. S1 sought revocation of the EPG and EPA, and the appointment of the Public Advocate and Public Trustee as AA's guardian and administrator respectively. S1 and his wife S1W, are seeking to have their legal costs paid by AA out of her estate and/or by S2 and S3 who were the enduring guardians and enduring attorneys. All parties were represented in the three applications, although AA's legal representative ceased to act for her a week prior to the final hearing as he became a witness in the proceedings. S1 and his wife S1W were represented by the same legal representative.…

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 AA

Details

AGLC: AA [2025] WASAT 2 (S)
Case: [2025] WASAT 2 (S)
Decision Date: 11 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of AA, the court dealt with applications for legal costs from the estate of a represented person and from interested parties. The case involved complex family disputes and the administration of a deceased person's estate under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) and the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). The court was required to determine whether costs orders should be made in favour of the applicants, considering the significant family conflict and the broader implications for the administration of the estate.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were whether the applicants were entitled to legal costs from the estate under section 16(4) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), and whether the applicants could recover costs from interested parties under section 87 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). The court needed to balance the applicants' entitlement to costs against the interests of the estate and other family members, particularly in the context of the ongoing family disputes.

The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to assess the applicants' entitlement to costs. It considered the nature of the family conflict, the role of the applicants in the proceedings, and the potential impact of costs orders on the estate and other family members. Ultimately, the court found that the applicants were not entitled to costs from the estate due to the nature of the family conflict and the lack of a clear benefit to the estate from the proceedings. However, the court did make a costs order in favour of one applicant against an interested party, taking into account the specific circumstances of that party's involvement in the litigation.

The final orders of the court were that no costs were to be paid from the estate, but an order for costs was made against one interested party in favour of one of the applicants. This decision reflects the court's careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the unique circumstances of the family dispute.

Orders