AL - [2016] WASAT 113

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: AL [2016] WASAT 113

MEMBER: MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)

HEARD: 29 AUGUST 2016

DELIVERED : 19 SEPTEMBER 2016

FILE NO/S: GAA 2606 of 2016

MATTER: AL
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration Administration Mental disability Mental illness Psychiatric condition Involuntary patient under mental health legislation Community treatment order Use of illicit drugs increases risk of relapse of mental illness Unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate Estate at risk Administration order made

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 64, s 68, s 69
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)

Result:

Administration order made

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

AL, a 39 year old man, was first hospitalised with a mental illness in 2009.
At the time the Public Trustee was appointed the administrator of his estate pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
In late 2011, the administration order was revoked on the basis that AL's mental illness was stable, he was compliant with treatment and he was assessed as having good insight and appropriate judgment.
In May 2016, AL was admitted to hospital after a relapse of his mental illness likely as a consequence of the use of illicit drugs.
Subsequent to his discharge from hospital under a community treatment order in June 2016, the hospital mental health team made an application for the appointment of an administrator.
AL had significant assets but very limited income. His income did not support the costs of maintaining those assets and his personal financial needs
AL's assets had increased since the previous administration order because he had received an inheritance. He was therefore exposed to a potentially greater loss than when the administration order was originally made.
The Tribunal found that AL's mental health was precarious, he had only recently suffered a significant relapse of his mental illness and at the time of the hearing remained an involuntary patient requiring treatment to be given under a community treatment order. He had limited insight into the effects of his mental illness on his cognition and he continued to use illicit drugs which increased the risk of relapse. AL also seemed overly sanguine on the impact on his estate if a further relapse of his mental illness occurred.
The Tribunal decided to appoint the Public Trustee as the administrator of AL's estate.
Given the necessary restrictions placed on AL by the making of the administration order and in expectation that he would continue to receive treatment for his illness, the review of the order was set for 12 months.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person : N/A

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

FS [2007] WASAT 202
GC and PC [2014] WASAT 14
XYZ (Guardianship) [2007] VCAT 1196

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

AL is a 39 year old man who…

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 AL

Details

AGLC: AL [2016] WASAT 113
Case: [2016] WASAT 113
Decision Date: 19 SEPTEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of AL, the primary dispute centred around the need for the appointment of an administrator for AL's estate, given his mental condition and the risk of relapse into mental illness if he continued to use illicit drugs. AL, who was an involuntary patient under the mental health legislation, was subject to a community treatment order. The Court was tasked with determining whether AL's psychiatric condition and drug use rendered him incapable of making reasonable judgments about his estate, thereby necessitating the appointment of an administrator.

The court needed to address whether AL's use of illicit drugs and the associated risk of relapse into mental illness rendered him incapable of managing his own affairs. It was crucial to ascertain whether his inability to make sound decisions about his estate justified the appointment of an administrator. The court also had to consider the implications of AL's community treatment order and its impact on his capacity to manage his estate.

In examining the evidence, the court found that AL's psychiatric condition and drug use significantly impaired his ability to make reasonable judgments about his estate. It was concluded that AL was unable to manage his estate prudently due to his mental disability. Consequently, the court determined that an administrator should be appointed to manage his estate to protect it from potential harm. The court's decision was grounded in the necessity to safeguard AL's interests and ensure his estate was administered appropriately.

The final orders included the appointment of an administrator to manage AL's estate. This decision was made in the interest of protecting AL from potential financial harm and ensuring his estate was handled responsibly. The court's ruling underscored the importance of safeguarding individuals with mental disabilities from making detrimental decisions about their own affairs.

Orders