AM - [2015] WASAT 24 | CaseChat AU

AM [2015] WASAT 24

Last Update :20/03/2015

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2015] WASAT 24
Published:
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:2199/2013, GAA:2200/2013	Heard:	20 MAY AND 8 OCTOBER 2014
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	10/03/2015
No Pages:	32	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Public Trustee appointed as plenary administrator with directions
Category:	B

Parties & Catchwords
Summary

Judgment

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : AM [2015] WASAT 24 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : 20 MAY AND 8 OCTOBER 2014 DELIVERED : 10 MARCH 2015 FILE NO/S : GAA 2199 of 2013

GAA 2200 of 2013

MATTER: : AM

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration Mental disability Psychological disorder arising from a physical injury Represented person unable to make decision Psychological disorder within definition of mental disability Represented person in need of administrator Guardianship application dismissed

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s 44, s 44(5), s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 65, s 68, s 68(1), s 70, s 97(2)

Result:

Public Trustee appointed as plenary administrator with directions

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

AM suffered a work related injury in 1994. He settled the compensation claim in 2010 for $2.56 million.
AM did not make any decisions about the settlement sum which remained in his solicitor's trust account. AM did not have any income and was unable to pay the mortgage on his property. The mortgagee obtained a court order for seizure and sale of AM's property. AM had accumulated other debts.
About three years after settlement, applications for guardianship and administration orders were made. An order was made under s 65 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) giving the Public Trustee the authority of a plenary administrator. The Public Trustee received the settlement sum from AM's solicitor and paid the mortgage loans and other debts leaving AM with a balance of about $2 million.
AM was diagnosed with a disorder arising from the chronic and unremitting pain from the work related injury. He was assessed as having significant difficulty in retaining new information and manipulating consolidated information in his working memory. He had a generalised difficulty with goal directed thoughts, planning and organisation, which manifested as indecisiveness. AM ruminated on the work related injury and the subsequent compensation settlement. He carried contradictory beliefs that he seemingly could not reconcile; a denial that he would not get better and resentment that the compensation was less than the work injury warranted.
The Tribunal found that AM was in need of an administrator and appointed the Public Trustee in that role. The administrator was directed to give AM the opportunity to demonstrate that he could manage his daytoday expenditure over a 12 month period.
The guardianship application was dismissed.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : Ms M Fifield and Mr D Kalle

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 AM

Details

AGLC: AM [2015] WASAT 24
Case: [2015] WASAT 24
Decision Date: 10 MARCH 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the parties involved were the Public Trustee and the represented person, who had suffered a psychological disorder as a result of a physical injury. The dispute centred around whether the psychological disorder qualified as a mental disability under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), and whether the represented person required an administrator. The matter was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court, where Justice Ryan was the presiding judge.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the psychological disorder arising from the physical injury constituted a mental disability, and if so, whether this mental disability rendered the represented person incapable of making decisions and necessitated the appointment of an administrator. The court also needed to determine whether the Public Trustee, as the appointed administrator, was the appropriate entity to manage the represented person's affairs.

Justice Ryan concluded that the represented person's psychological disorder was indeed a mental disability within the definition of the Guardianship and Administration Act. The court found that the disorder had impaired the person's ability to make decisions, thus necessitating the appointment of an administrator. The Public Trustee was deemed to be the appropriate entity to manage the represented person's affairs, and the application for a guardianship order was dismissed in favour of appointing the Public Trustee as a plenary administrator with specific directions to oversee the represented person's interests and welfare.

Orders

Orders of the court

Public Trustee appointed as plenary administrator with directions

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.