AI and GR [2014] WASAT 150

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2014] WASAT 150
Act:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 2004 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:302/2014	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	5/11/14
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs application refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	AI GR
Catchwords:	Enduring power of attorney Application requiring attorneys to produce records of all transactions made under the enduring power of attorney Application dismissed Costs application Starting position is that parties bear their own costs Costs application refused
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 107(1)(a), s 107(1)(b), s 109(1)(a), s 109(1)(b) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 15, s 87
Case References:	EW [2010] WASAT 91 KS [2008] WASAT 29
Summary	An elderly man had made an enduring power of attorney in December 2011 appointing two of his children as his attorneys. The man died in August 2012.,The man's children were in dispute about the nature and extent of his estate. One of the children alleged misappropriation of funds from the man's estate by one of the attorneys. She lodged an application with the Tribunal under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) seeking an order requiring the attorneys to produce records of all the transactions that occurred during the term of the enduring power of attorney.,The Tribunal dismissed the application because one of the attorneys had filed records with the Tribunal that satisfactorily explained the transactions. ,Subsequent to the determination of the application in respect to the enduring power of attorney, the attorney sought an order from the Tribunal that the applicant pay her legal fees.,The application in respect to the enduring power of attorney was not one in the view of the Tribunal made outside of those typically made under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990. That the children of the man were already in dispute about the nature and extent of his estate covering a period outside of the period of operation of the enduring power of attorney, was no barrier to the making of the application with the Tribunal. The Tribunal had been given a general supervisory role in respect to enduring powers of attorney under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990.,The Tribunal was not satisfied that the application made in respect to the enduring power of attorney was clearly untenable or that the applicant acted so unreasonably that the Tribunal should depart from the ordinary position that parties should bear their own costs. Accordingly, the Tribunal declined to exercise the discretion to award costs.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 2004 (WA) CITATION : AI and GR [2014] WASAT 150 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 5 NOVEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : GAA 302 of 2014 BETWEEN : AI

Applicant

AND

Respondent

Catchwords:

Enduring power of attorney Application requiring attorneys to produce records of…

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 AI and GR

Details

AGLC: AI and GR [2014] WASAT 150
Case: [2014] WASAT 150
Decision Date: 5 NOVEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved AI and GR. AI made an application for GR, who was acting under an enduring power of attorney, to produce records of all transactions made under the power. The court was required to determine whether AI's application should be granted and whether GR should be ordered to produce the requested records. The court also considered an application for costs made by AI.

The central legal issue for the court to address was whether AI had established a sufficient case to warrant the production of the records by GR. The court had to assess the merits of the application and consider the rights and obligations of both parties under the enduring power of attorney. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The court found that AI had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the application, and therefore dismissed it. In relation to the costs application, the court held that the starting position was that each party should bear their own costs. The court noted that AI's application had little merit and, given the circumstances, found that it was appropriate to refuse the costs application. The court's decision was based on the lack of merit in the application and the need to protect GR from unnecessary expense and inconvenience.

The court refused AI's application for costs, leaving each party to bear their own costs. The dismissal of the application and the refusal of the costs application resulted in no party receiving any financial relief from the other.

Orders

Orders of the court

Costs application refused

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.