ADP

Case [2005] WASAT 131


JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM:   HUMAN RIGHTS

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION:   ADP [2005] WASAT 131

MEMBER:   MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER)

HEARD:   19 APRIL 2005

DELIVERED          :   10 JUNE 2005

FILE NO/S:   GAA 303 of 2005

BETWEEN:   ADP

Applicant

Catchwords:

Guardianship - Need for a guardian - Needs of the person - Meaning of treatment - Consent to treatment - Restraint

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43, s 119

State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

The order for plenary guardianship made by the Guardianship and Administration Board on 6 March 2001 was revoked and a new order made for the Public Advocate to be limited guardian.

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Self represented

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Self-represented

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

Re Application for Guardianship Order (BCB) (2002) 28 SR (WA) 338

Re BTO, unreported decision of the Full Board of the Guardianship and Administration Board delivered 14 October 2004 (Hon Justice ML Barker, President, Dr A McCutcheon, Member and F Child, Member)

Review of Guardianship and Administration Orders in respect of MM (2001) 28 SR (WA) 320

RW, unreported decision of the Guardianship and Administration Board, No 020295, 19 December 2003

Case(s) also cited:

Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB (Marion's case) (1992) 175 CLR 218

MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER):

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. On 11 March 2005, the Public Advocate filed an application for review of the guardianship order for ADP.

  2. The Public Advocate is seeking revocation of the order appointing her as ADP's plenary guardian.  The Guardianship and Administration Board made that order on 6 March 2001 for five years.

  3. The Tribunal is deciding this application because the State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act2004 (WA) came into effect on 24 January 2005 and the functions of the Board were taken over by the Tribunal.

  4. The Tribunal heard the application on 22 March 2005 and reserved its decision.

Capacity of ADP

  1. When the guardianship order was made in 2001, the Board found ADP to lack capacity pursuant to s 43(1)(b) of the Guardianship and Administration Act1990 (WA) ("the Act").

  2. Section 43(1)(b) provides:

    "43. Making of guardianship order

    (1)Subject to section 4, where the State Administrative Tribunal is satisfied that a person in respect of whom an application for a guardianship order is made under section 40 ‑

    (a)       … ,

    (b)       is –

    (i)incapable of looking after his own health and safety;

    (ii)unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or

    (iii)in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others;

    and …"

  3. Section 4(2)(b), as one of the principles which the Tribunal shall observe in dealing with proceedings commenced under the Act, presumes a person to be competent unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.

  4. The Tribunal has…

Continue reading ADP

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
ADP [2005] WASAT 131
Case
[2005] WASAT 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are ADP and the Guardian, with the dispute centering around the necessity of ADP having a guardian appointed under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990. The case was heard in the Mental Health Review Tribunal of Western Australia. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether ADP still needed a guardian, and if the term "needs of the person" encompassed all of ADP's wants and necessities.

The court examined the two-step process outlined in the Review of Guardianship and Administration Orders in respect of MM, which required determining whether there was a need for a guardian and then assessing if ADP's needs could be met through informal arrangements that were less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action. The guardian argued that ADP was receiving optimal care from his GP, Dr L, and the nursing home staff, and that Dr L was agreeable to continue providing treatment without formal guardianship. The court also had to consider whether the administration of olanzapine to ADP was considered treatment under the Act.

In conclusion, the court found that there was no longer a need for a guardian to be appointed for ADP. The administration of olanzapine to ADP without his knowledge was deemed to be treatment for the purposes of the Act. The court considered the guardian's submissions, Dr L's report, and the definition of "treatment" in the Act. The Full Board determined that ADP's needs could be met through informal arrangements that were less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action, and thus, the need for a guardian was no longer present.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

MR J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MR J

The meanings of "is in need of a guardian" and "needs of the person" were considered by the Full Board in Review of Guardianship and Administration Orders in respect of MM (2001) 28 SR (WA) 320 at 320‑332. The Board took the view that the terms involve different tests. Where the provisions of s 43(1)(b) are met it would usually follow that the person "is in need of a guardian" because of the absence of formal legal authority to make decisions for the person. However, this will not always be the case. In MM (supra) at 330:"The mere fact that a person has a disability that makes him unable to make reasonable decisions does not automatically mean the person is "in need of a guardian"…Such a need might not exist under s 43(1)(c), for example, if there is some other statutory provision which gives legal authority for the decision-making in question (cf s119) or if there is in fact no live issue or foreseeable conflict in relation to the personal affairs of the represented person so as to give rise to the need for this Board to intervene in the life of the represented person by making a formal order.… the phrase 'needs of the person' … involves a different test. The 'needs' there described are of wide import and encompass all the wants and necessaries of the person. Thus there is a two step process. The Board must first determine whether there is a need for a guardian in s 43(1)(c)…and then move on to the issue whether notwithstanding the absence of any formal legal authority to deal with the affairs of the person, the needs of that person can nevertheless be met under informal arrangements which are less restrictive of the person's freedom of decision and action." In respect of the matter before this Tribunal, the guardian mentions two areas of decision-making for ADP that have arisen during the term of the order; these being the consent to ADP's treatment and health care and decisions about where and with whom he is to live. I will consider each in turn against the two-step process articulated in MM (supra) as to whether there remains a need to have a guardian appointed for ADP. The guardian submits that ADP is receiving "optimal care" from a combination of the efforts of the GP, Dr L and the nursing home staff and that Dr L is agreeable to continue to provide treatment for ADP without the need for formal guardianship. He is given olanzapine 5 milligrams a day without his knowledge, which together with "behavioural strategies", represents a regime of behaviour management. The guardian reports Dr L as stating that the olanzapine is prescribed to treat ADP's "paranoid psychosis" although this diagnosis is not included in Dr L's report to the Tribunal of 31 March 2005 in which ADP is said to be suffering from a dementing condition. Before considering the steps in MM, I must first consider whether the giving of olanzapine to ADP in the circumstances mentioned is treatment for the purposes of the Act. "Treatment" is defined in s 3 of the Act." 'treatment' means any medical, surgical, dental or related treatment or care that may lawfully be provided to a patient with the patient's consent or the consent of any person authorised by law to consent on behalf of the patient, but does not include the procedures referred to in Division 3 of Part 5."