BZ - [2019] WASAT 14 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   BZ [2019] WASAT 14
MEMBER:   MS F CHILD, MEMBER
HEARD:   12 DECEMBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   27 MARCH 2019
FILE NO/S:   GAA 2579 of 2018

BZ
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and Administration - Application for review of guardianship and administration orders Represented person with diagnosis of organic personality disorder causing impulsive spending, self-harming behaviour and recurrent situational crises - Need for administrator to manage impulsive spending to ensure access to necessities Need for a guardian to advocate in respect of migration matters as represented person on Temporary Protection Visa and at risk of cancellation of visa - Wishes of the represented person that orders be revoked - Limited guardianship order made Administration order confirmed

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43(1), s 64(1), s 86, s 110ZD

Result:

Public Trustee confirmed as administrator
Public Advocate appointed limited guardian

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person

Ms S Oliver

Solicitors:

Represented Person

Mental Health Law Centre

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

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

These are the reasons of the Tribunal for the decisions made on 13 December 2018 in respect of the review of guardianship and administration orders made for BZ (the represented person).
The represented person sought review of the orders pursuant to s 86 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (the GA Act) of a guardianship order dated 11 March 2014 by which the Public Advocate is appointed limited guardian and an administration order dated 13 February 2018 by which the Public Trustee is appointed plenary administrator.

Background

The represented person is a man of 24 years. He is an asylum seeker and suffered serious injuries in a boat sinking in 2012 in which a number of people died. He was being treated for those injuries when he required aortic valve replacement surgery following which he suffered a rupture of a brain aneurysm and sustained a brain injury.
The represented person is prescribed Warfarin for his heart condition but is reportedly erratic with compliance. He is also reported to have self-harmed or threatened self-harm and has had a number of admissions to mental health units.
The represented person reportedly has no family in Australia and is said to be socially isolated and lacking any consistent support. He is reported to be homeless or in insecure housing and has had contact with the criminal justice system for a range of offences including assaults. He has had a period of imprisonment.

Evidence and material before the Tribunal

The following reports are before the Tribunal:
•Dr A, general practitioner dated 7 October 2018 with hospital discharge letters attached;
•Dr M, consultant psychiatrist dated 11 September 2018 with discharged summaries attached;
•Ms KC, clinical nurse dated 11 September 2018;
•Public Trustee dated 25 September 2018; and
•Public Advocate dated 21 September 2018.
In addition to the reports filed for this review, the Tribunal…

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 BZ

Details

AGLC: BZ [2019] WASAT 14
Case: [2019] WASAT 14
Decision Date: 27 MARCH 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of BZ, the respondent sought review of orders made by the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning her guardianship and administration. The respondent, diagnosed with an organic personality disorder, exhibited impulsive spending, self-harming behaviour, and recurrent situational crises. The court was tasked with determining whether the current arrangements were appropriate given her wishes and needs, including her desire to have the orders revoked.

The primary legal issues centred on the balance between the respondent's autonomy and the necessity of continued guardianship and administration to protect her welfare. The court needed to weigh the respondent's expressed wishes against the potential risks of her impulsive spending and the need for advocacy in migration matters due to her Temporary Protection Visa status. The court also had to consider whether the current arrangements were in her best interests and whether they adequately addressed her specific needs.

The court determined that while the respondent had the right to express her wishes, her condition necessitated continued management of her finances and advocacy in her migration matters. Despite her expressed desire to revoke the orders, the court found that an administrator was essential to manage her impulsive spending to ensure she had access to necessities. Furthermore, a guardian was necessary to advocate on her behalf in respect of her migration matters, given her precarious visa status. Consequently, the court made a limited guardianship order and confirmed the administration order, recognising the respondent's autonomy while prioritising her welfare and safety.

Orders