BH and BC
[2005] WASAT 221
•22 AUGUST 2005
BH and BC [2005] WASAT 221
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2005] WASAT 221 | |
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:1224/2005 | 20 APRIL & 25 MAY 2005 | |
| Coram: | MS C HILL (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 22/08/05 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Plenary administrator appointed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BH BC |
Catchwords: | Guardianship and Administration Administration Chronic paranoid schizophrenia and grandiose delusional beliefs Numerous debts Assets at risk |
Legislation: | Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 64(2)(b) |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : BH and BC [2005] WASAT 221 MEMBER : MS C HILL (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : 20 APRIL & 25 MAY 2005 DELIVERED : 22 AUGUST 2005 FILE NO/S : GAA 1224 of 2005 BETWEEN : BH
- Represented person
AND
BC
Applicant
Catchwords:
Guardianship and Administration - Administration - Chronic paranoid schizophrenia and grandiose delusional beliefs - Numerous debts - Assets at risk
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 64(2)(b)
Result:
Plenary administrator appointed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Represented person : Self-represented
Applicant : Self-represented
Solicitors:
Represented person : Self-represented
Applicant : Self-represented
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary
1 A Social Worker at Alma Street Centre made application for the appointment of an administrator for a client diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia. The matter was first heard on 20 April 2005 and reconvened 25 May 2005 in order to obtain additional evidence. Throughout both hearings the proposed represented person was opposed to the making of an order and disputed all evidence presented by the mental health team responsible for his care. However, the Tribunal was satisfied by that same evidence that the proposed represented person was a person for whom an order could be made under s 64 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) and that his estate was in need of protection. Consequently, the Public Trustee was appointed as his plenary administrator for a two year period.
The Application
2 These reasons relate to an application made on 29 March 2005 by BC, Social Worker at Alma Street Centre for an administrator to be appointed for BH. His application made reference to the represented person as having been diagnosed with a chronic paranoid schizophrenia and stated that his "disability does affect his decision-making capacity because of his deficits of concentration - and numerous grandiose delusional beliefs. In general BH's lack of insight to the severity of his thought disorganization has him making unsound decisions, and impaired social judgments. In particular, BH's delusion he has a large amount of money to give away is a concern".
3 The applicant was concerned that as the proposed represented person was unable to make decisions in his own best interest his assets were at serious risk. He proposed that the Public Trustee be appointed as administrator.
First hearing - Evidence
4 At the initial hearing on 20 April 2005 the applicant advised the Tribunal that he had not seen BH since he was discharged from the Mead Centre three weeks earlier and therefore had nothing to add to the written documentation he had submitted with his application. His report to the Tribunal, dated 18 March 2005, reiterated the statements on his application concerning BH's lack of insight as to the severity of his thought disorganization and how this impairs his social judgment.
(Page 4)
5 The report by Dr McK dated 14 March 2005 was written when BH was in the Alma Street Centre. It stated that BH's "current relapse is very severe and demonstrating resistance to aggressive medical management. Whilst in hospital he has clearly shown evidence of grossly impaired judgment endangering his future health and prospects". Further "Is spending excessively and driving himself further and further into debt. Judgment grossly impaired by virtue of his disinhibition and psychosis".
6 BH gave his view that the medical reports were made up.
7 BH was asked by the Tribunal member about the nature and extent of his debt. He responded that his Visa debt was as a result of a mistake by the bank and that "they" had told him that he could pay off $62 per month. He suggested that if they were really concerned about it they could talk to his mother whom he described as having millions in the bank.
8 He stated that his mother lived in Baldivis: later in the proceedings BH stated that his mother lived in Adelaide. Other debts were identified ranging from $35 623.63 (Key Start Home Loans), $3214.77 (ANZ Internet Banking), $1811.30 (Centrelink overpayment), $193.06 (Telstra), $877.50 (Energy House) and a final demand for $162 (Police Traffic Fine). For most of these debts BH had a comment as to how he might pay them off a small amount at a time.
9 BC expressed concern that such small repayments were likely to compound the problem rather than alleviate it and that BH showed no concern that his financial difficulties could get out of hand.
10 BH talked about how he has paid off debts and how much he is going to pay, that he has three jobs, a house and a wealthy mother. However, he was unable to supply evidence to support any of his assertions.
11 The Tribunal member was concerned that the evidence from Dr McK was, at the time of the hearing, out of date and that the applicant had no recent knowledge as to how BH was managing his finances at present.
12 The hearing was adjourned in order to obtain more recent and more relevant evidence.
Second Hearing - Evidence
13 The Tribunal reconvened on 25 May 2005. Additional evidence in the form of written reports before the Tribunal were from Dr S, Psychiatrist at the Rockingham - Kwinana Mental Health Service, and from DB, Community Mental Health Nurse.
(Page 5)
14 The salient parts of the reports submitted by Dr S and dated 24 May 2005 were read to BH. It was difficult to read it continuously as BH continually interrupted either to disagree or to make comments as to his understanding of his condition. He vigorously disputed that he was symptomatic at the time of the hearing and that he was quite capable of handling his own affairs. He also stated that he "did the exam for Public Service yesterday and I passed that with flying colours, so should be getting plenty of work soon".
15 The Tribunal member also read out extracts of the report by DB who stated that he had known BH for 11 years and was his case manager. The report was dated 24 May 2005, just one day prior to the second hearing. He stated that "Presently BH is acutely unwell the nature of his schizophrenic illness is impacting on his ability to make sound and realistic judgments particularly regarding his major financial assets namely his house and vehicle". He made the observations that BH is "currently able to make decisions about day to day financial decisions paying bill [sic] budgeting etc. BH is presently incapable of making decisions about his long term future but will with effective treatment become capable. My knowledge of BH has been acquired over many years of treatment with him".
16 BH continued to interject while parts of DB's report were read to him and disputed the concerns about his financial situation by stating that as soon as he got a job he'd be fine.
17 BC reiterated his earlier concerns and added that he understood that BH had ceased taking medication. He also stated that "BH has developed psychotic symptoms of a grandiose nature. That is evidence [sic] by his alleged desire to sell his house". Later he said "I'll just sort of confirm that the information I've received is BH has resisted treatment, has become …". He was interrupted by BH stating that he would "get $185 000 when I sell my house and that will pay my bills in one …one hit".
18 BH asserted that the debts discussed at the previous hearing were half paid. The Tribunal member reminded him that he had been asked to provide evidence of any repayments made. BH said that he did not see why he should provide such evidence.
19 By this point in the proceedings the Tribunal member indicated that the Public Trustee was to be appointed as administrator but BH became more and more agitated and kept interrupting thus making the discussion
(Page 6)
- disjointed and difficult to maintain. Eventually he walked out of the hearing.
Findings of the Tribunal
20 Before an administrator order can be appointed the Tribunal must be satisfied that under s 64 (1)(a) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) that a person is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate.
21 The Tribunal was most reliant on the written evidence of Dr S and DB, both of whom have had recent contact with BH and have knowledge of him over an extended period of time.
22 The Tribunal was satisfied that s 64 (1)(a) applies. However, establishing that s 64(1)(a) applies is insufficient to the making of an Administration Order. The Tribunal must also be satisfied that s 64(1)(b) applies, that is, that the person is in need of an administrator of his estate. In this instant the evidence of the applicant and the proposed represented person at the first hearing was that BH has a series of debts but no well conceived plan as to how to make repayments without placing himself further in debt. He provided no evidence at the second hearing to demonstrate that he had either paid anything towards reducing those debts or that he had a reasonable plan for doing so other than selling his house.
23 Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that s 64 (2)(b) applies, that is, that BH is in need of an administrator of his estate, specifically to manage the repayment of his debts and protect his assets identified as a house and vehicle.
24 In the absence of any suitable person being proposed as administrator the Tribunal was obliged to appoint the Public Trustee as plenary administrator of the estate. The Tribunal was mindful of the written comment by DB, the case manager, that BH will, with effective treatment, become capable and set the automatic review of the order to take place in two years.
Orders
25 The formal orders of the Tribunal are:
1. The Public Trustee of 565 Hay Street, Perth WA be appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the
(Page 7)
- represented person with all the powers and duties conferred by the Act.
- 2. This order be reviewed by 25 May 2007.
- I certify that this and the preceding [25] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS C HILL, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
0
0
1