C
[2025] WASAT 113
•16 OCTOBER 2025
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION: C [2025] WASAT 113
MEMBER: MS K LANG, MEMBER
HEARD: 11 SEPTEMBER 2025
DELIVERED : 11 SEPTEMBER 2025
PUBLISHED : 16 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S: GAA 3955 of 2025
GAA 3993 of 2025
C
Represented Person
R
Applicant
Catchwords:
Guardianship and administration - Applications for the appointment of guardian and administrator - Applications to intervene in enduring power of guardianship - Represented person with diagnosis of dementia - Whether need for an administrator and a guardian - Niece appointed under enduring powers of attorney and guardianship - Attorney transferred the bulk of the estate of the represented person to bank account in her name - Contract to build granny flat at attorney's residence - Conflict of interest - Need for administrator and guardian - No less restrictive means to meet needs - Enduring power of attorney and guardianship revoked - Public Advocate appointed limited guardian for accommodation decisions due to niece's conflict of interest - Public Trustee appointed plenary administrator - Niece appointed limited guardian for treatment and services
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(5), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 43(1), s 43(1)(a), s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s 44, s 44(5), s 64, s 64(1), s 65, s 68, s 107, s 109
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)
Result:
Enduring Power of Attorney revoked
Enduring Power of Guardianship revoked
Public Trustee appointed plenary administrator
Public Advocate appointed limited guardian for accommodation decisions
Applicant appointed limited guardian for treatment and services decisions
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Represented Person | : | In Person |
| Applicant | : | In Person |
Solicitors:
| Represented Person | : | N/A |
| Applicant | : | N/A |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
DH [2020] WASAT 100
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
R (applicant) brought applications under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) for guardianship and administration orders for her aunt, C.
C is a 79 year old woman with significant cognitive impairment due to dementia. She appointed R as her enduring attorney and guardian shortly before she was admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) (MH Act) for six months. C was eventually discharged to live with R as she is not able to live independently.
R signed a contract to build a granny flat on her property to accommodate C and transferred money from C's bank account into her own account to pay for the building works. C's bank (Bank 1) raised concerns and froze the accounts which led to R's applications.
R's actions created a conflict of interest and breached her legal responsibilities as attorney under the GA Act. I revoked the enduring powers of attorney and guardianship and appointed the Public Trustee (PT) as administrator of C's estate. I appointed the Public Advocate guardian for accommodation decisions and appointed R guardian with treatment and services functions.
These are my reasons for those decisions.
Legislation
To appoint an administrator under s 64 of the GA Act I must be satisfied that the proposed represented person is unable by reason of a mental disability to make reasonable judgments about all or any part of their estate and that they are in need of an administrator of their estate.[1]
[1] GA Act, s 64(1).
To appoint a guardian under s 43(1) of the GA Act I must be satisfied that the represented person has attained the aged of 18 years, and is:[2]
(a)incapable of looking after their own health and safety;
(b)unable to make reasonable judgments about their person; or
(c)in need of oversight care or control in the interests of their own health and safety and in need of a guardian.
[2] GA Act, s 43(1)(a), (b) and (c).
If satisfied that a person is a person for whom orders can and should be made, I must then consider who should be appointed[3] and other matters such as the scope of the authority and the duration of any orders made.
Principles to be observed
[3] GA Act, s 68 and s 44.
The Tribunal must observe s 4 of the GA Act in all proceedings brought under the GA Act.
These principles provide that the primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of the person for whom an application is made.
The principles also provide that every person is presumed to be capable of looking after their own health and safety; making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their person; managing their own affairs; and making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their estate, until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.[4]
[4] GA Act, s 4(3).
Orders should not be made unless they are needed; if the needs of the person can be met by less restrictive means, then guardianship and administration orders should not be made.[5]
[5] GA Act, s 4(4).
If an order is made it should impose the least restrictions possible on the person's freedom of decision and action.[6] A plenary guardian should not be appointed if a limited order will meet the needs of the represented person.[7]
[6] GA Act, s 4(6).
[7] GA Act, s 4(5).
Finally, the Tribunal should seek to ascertain the person's views and wishes as expressed at the time or gathered from their previous actions.[8]
What the Tribunal must decide
[8] GA Act, s 4(7).
The questions to be decided in applications for the appointment of a guardian and an administrator are:
(a)Is the presumption of capacity set aside and is C a person for whom a guardian and administrator may be appointed?
(b)If so, is C in need of those orders?
(c)Are the Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA) and Enduring Power of Guardianship (EPG) less restrictive means to meet C's financial and personal decision-making needs? This is the central question to be determined, along with:
(d)If C is in need of guardianship and administration orders, who should be appointed in those roles?
Evidence and material before the Tribunal
At the hearing I heard evidence from R and C by telephone, the Public Advocate's investigator (investigator) in person and the Public Trustee's trust manager who also attended by telephone.
In addition to the oral evidence, I had regard to documents including the following:
(a)Psychiatric Report of Dr TS dated 6 August 2025, stating that the represented person has a diagnosis of major depression and dementia and lacks capacity in all domains of decision-making.
(b)A report of HB, registered nurse, stating that R is a very supportive niece. She and her family are very caring and have accommodated C in their home. C has advanced dementia without the cognitive capacity to manage her finances, requiring around the clock care and requiring one to two people for transfers. She requires full assistance with all of her activities of daily living and does not have insight into her condition. She is a high falls risk and a swallowing risk, requiring semi thickened fluids.
(c)R's application for a Centrelink carer's payment and allowance signed by Dr AM of [Suburb] Hospital, stating that C is diagnosed with mixed Alzheimer's and vascular dementia, and other physical ailments, first diagnosed in May 2024.
(d)Discharge Summaries for the long hospital stay from 3 December 2024 to 3 June 2025, confirming the admission under the MH Act as C lacked capacity to consent to a voluntary admission. Her primary issues are noted as postural hypotension, memory concerns, depression with catatonic features and delusions. Cognitive decline was recorded as being evident for the previous six months.
The hospital notes record that in August and September 2024 C's memory failure was observed including missed medical appointments, not eating, low mood and not taking her medications. She received many electroconvulsive treatments during her six-month admission. Her diagnosis with mixed dementia was confirmed with an MRI on 23 December 2024 which revealed neurodegenerative changes.
Additional comments in the Hospital records state, '[a] clear few years history of cognitive decline, as evidenced by her collateral history. She became increasingly forgetful and required prompts from her carers to take her medications …'.
(e)C's EPG dated 15 October 2024 which appoints R as sole enduring guardian authorising all functions to be exercised without restriction. The EPG is witnessed by Dr MT, general practitioner, and VT, registered nurse.
(f)C's EPA dated 15 November 2024 which appoints R as sole attorney, with the power to continue in force notwithstanding the donor's subsequent legal incapacity. The EPA is also witnessed by Dr MT, general practitioner, and VT, registered nurse.
(g)R's written submissions, statements setting out decisions under the EPA and EPG and C's assets and expenditure.
(h)Various bank statements lodged by R.
(i)Report from the home care package service provider confirming that C relies heavily on R as she is unable to manage independently. R supplements and has had to make significant life sacrifices to sustain this arrangement as the home care package funding is not sufficient for the level of care C needs.
(j)Investigator's report dated 9 September 2025.
(k) Contract to construct a granny flat for $285,000 signed by Granny Flats WA and R.
C's evidence
C attended the hearing by telephone with R and confirmed her wish to remain living with R. She readily stated that a granny flat was to be built at R's property, so she did not have to move into aged care but was unable to expand on this subject. C was hesitant in her response to questions and unable to make a meaningful contribution during the hearing.
C has expressed her wish both in the hearing and previously to others including the investigator that she wants to live with R and does not want to move into aged care. C told the investigator she would like R to continue to manage all of her affairs.
Her previously lodged written communication with the Tribunal during her son's own administration and guardianship proceedings indicated her confidence in R and wish that R be appointed as the son's guardian and administrator.[9]
[9] Letter to Tribunal dated 23 December 2023 '[t]his letter is written for the purpose of the State Administrative Tribunal and [disability accommodation provider] to keep on record … [disabled son] in time is due to inherit my family home [address] and possibly a Trust Fund'.
The execution of the EPA and the EPG in 2024 also reflect C's trust in R.
I am satisfied that C's views and wishes are for R to continue to manage her personal and financial affairs on her behalf.
R's evidence
R gave evidence on oath and testified that she is a disability support worker and has always been close to C.
She is the administrator and guardian of C's disabled son who lives in supported accommodation.
C has never married and is estranged from her extended family. R and C had discussed building a granny flat for C so she could live out her years with R, but this was unaffordable until C's aunt died in October 2024 and left her an inheritance.
She was living alone with home care services provided by [service provider] in a house owned by the aunt until her hospitalisation in December 2024.
On 3 June C was discharged from hospital to live with R and her family on their 2.5-acre property. C moved into a converted carport which was formerly occupied by R's son and the son moved into his parents' bedroom.
C requires full time support and supervision with her high care needs, including assistance with all of her activities of daily living. She requires two people to assist her with transfers and equipment including a standing hoist and hospital bed.
On the day of C's hospital discharge, R and the builder signed the granny flat building contract for $285,000.[10]
[10] R agreed she dated the contract 6 March 2025 by mistake. The correct date is 3 June 2025 as stated next to the builder's signature.
R's written submissions state the granny flat will 'cater for [C] and a support worker, allowing [C] to live her days out in an environment which she felt safe and cared for' … '[C] has been a part of all meetings and plan reviews'. [C] will pay the full cost of the granny flat and the cost of land works and septic tanks.[11]
[11] R's submissions filed on 5 September 2025.
The granny flat design includes two bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen and living area and is built specifically for C's needs including wheelchair accessibility.
R's submissions states, '[C] is deemed as High Care as she required assistance with every aspect of daily living. Including Personal Care, Showering, Drying, Dressing, Full assistance with Toileting, transferring into chair or bed, Meal Preparation, Medications, Driving her to appointments etc'.[12]
[12] R's submissions filed on 4 September 2025.
R has reduced her working hours from five days to one day per week to care for C. A private support worker is paid $40 per hour on R's workday.
The bank transactions
R testified that when C appointed R as her enduring attorney in November 2024, she had two bank accounts at Bank 1 with balances under $1,000; one was C's 'Retirement' account for her age pension and the other C had called her 'Christmas Club' account. C also had a bank account at Bank 2 with a balance of $8.00 and no other assets.
C's inheritance of $400,000 was deposited into her Christmas Club account in April 2025.
On 4 June 2025 R opened a bank account in her own name at Bank 1 and called this the Granny Flat account (R's account).
On 5 June 2025 R transferred $5,000 from C's Christmas Club account into R's account. The next day, R transferred $20,000 from C's account into R's account. Over the next two weeks R made a further 14 withdrawals, each of $20,000, from C's account into R's account.
Bank 1 raised concerns and froze C's accounts, leading to R's applications. $91,000 remained in C's Christmas Club account; R's account balance of $301,260 was entirely derived from C's funds.
On 23 June 2025, R paid the builder the $18,500 deposit for the granny flat.
R transferred the balance of R's account ($281,000) to a second bank (Bank 2) called '[C] G Granny Flat Account' (Bank 2 Account) which she opened on 29 July 2025. She describes this account as a joint account for R and C.
Meanwhile, Bank 1 was persuaded by R's lawyer to unfreeze C's accounts.[13]
[13] At which point R sought to withdraw the applications; leave was refused as I did not consider this to be in C's best interests. I made an emergency order pursuant to s 65 of the GA Act to secure C's estate. The order appointed the Public Trustee and authorised the exercise of the functions of a plenary administrator. R was directed not to act under the EPA until further order of the Tribunal.
An undated bank statement lodged by R indicates that R transferred $337,485.98 to the Bank 2 Account. R agreed that C's funds were the source of the entire balance of the Bank 2 Account.
R did not identify these withdrawals from C's account into her own account in her lodged list of assets and transactions.
R did not notify Centrelink that she had withdrawn C's money and deposited it into her accounts or that she intended to spend $285,000 of C's funds on a granny flat on her own property (plus unquantified associated building works).
Public Advocate's Investigator's evidence
The investigator filed her report and testified at the hearing. Her evidence is summarised below.
C had dementia or major cognitive impairment by the time R signed the $285,000 granny flat contract which amounted to a substantial gift to R. C could not consent to gifting to R for any purpose. It would not be appropriate to gift this amount to her enduring attorney. There is no contract between R and C regarding funding or gifting. The granny flat would belong to R as it was to be constructed on R's property.
Bank 1's actions to freeze C's accounts were understandable, as were its concerns.
It is clear or should have been clear to R that C could not consent by June 2025 to a financial decision of this amount and this would not be in C's best interests with R primarily benefitting from gifting her $285,000 to build the granny flat. This is highlighted by C not being able to even tell the investigator how much the granny flat cost.
The investigator interviewed C who said she trusts R for financial and personal matters. C did not remember that the granny flat was progressing. She remembered meeting with people to discuss the possibility of it being built. C was unable to provide any other details regarding the granny flat.
R confirmed to the investigator that C is paying the entire cost of the granny flat as she does not want to move into residential care. R and C had a verbal agreement to build the granny flat for C's accommodation until her death.
C was unable to give details of her ongoing expenses but indicated she likes to give money to her son D.
R provided a list of C's outgoings including utilities for a house in [suburb] where C resided in 2024. This house was owned by her deceased aunt and R advised C was meant to inherit it, but the aunt's business is still the registered owner. R advised the investigator C was still paying for the outgoings for the house.
R confirmed that C has a level 4 home care package which provides 1.5 hours personal care per day, so they have private supports assisting as well.
R explained the applications were made because Bank 1 had locked C's accounts. The bank had concerns that C may be taken advantage of as one of the accounts was called Granny Flat. The bank accounts were locked for up to six weeks before R's lawyer assisted her to reverse Bank 1's decision.
R told the investigator that she and C decided to transfer C's money into R's bank account because C wanted to make sure R could access the funds in case the banks locked the accounts again. C did not want R to be left having to pay for the granny flat.
The investigator raised concerns that the building contract essentially amounts to a $285,000 gift to R. C is 79 years old with progressive dementia and high care needs and may not be able to reside in the granny flat for long.
C's accounts indicate $352,000 is unaccounted for and R as attorney has provided no transparency. R will obtain a significant financial benefit from the granny flat construction on her property. R has not protected C's estate, kept reasonable records or acted in C's best interests. R has a clear conflict of interest having made financial decisions which are self-enriching and therefore not appropriate under the EPA
C requires a substitute decision-maker as a result of her cognitive impairment. The investigator submitted that the EPA is not acting as a less restrictive alternative to an administration order.
The investigator concluded that R is not a suitable person to act as attorney or administrator.
The PT is best appointed to make financial decisions due to R's conflict of interest.
The investigator recommended that the Public Advocate be appointed as C's guardian for future accommodation decisions due to R's conflict of interest. If the granny flat is built and C's health continues to deteriorate a decision may be required to move C into a residential care facility.
If R was willing to continue to make treatment and services decisions for C the investigator suggested that R could be appointed guardian with those functions. There is no suggestion that she has not acted in C's best interests in that regard.
In response to this evidence, R testified that all she wanted was to look after C. For someone to come in and say that she is taking advantage of her is hurtful and inaccurate.
R agreed that the building of a two bedroom, two bathroom extension with kitchen and living area would substantially increase the value of her own property. She did not dispute that this presented a conflict of interest in her role as C's attorney but testified that C had wanted to do this for a long time and that it was for C's benefit.
R did not dispute that C wanted her disabled son to inherit her entire estate. R knew that the granny flat contract would very significantly benefit R and her family while drastically reducing the son's inheritance, which is relevant to her role as his administrator. She testified that the son would likely stay over in the granny flat in the future.
R's potential conflict of interest in her role as administrator of the son's estate is a matter for another proceeding.
R testified that she had sacrificed a lot to care for C in her home including moving her 10 year old son out of his converted bedroom in the carport to accommodate C. The son was now sleeping in his parents' bedroom with R and her husband.
R was only able to work one day a week now because of C's high care needs. She testified that if the granny flat did not go ahead, she would have to find full-time work. Her son could not stay in her bedroom. The implication was that C would have to move into aged care.
She did not have a written agreement with C regarding the granny flat because her lawyer said it was not urgent.
R agreed that she would be willing to be appointed as limited guardian for treatment and services decisions.
Legal obligations of attorneys acting under an EPA
C signed the EPA on 15 November 2024. It was styled to be in effect from execution, gives no directions to the attorney and does not authorise gifts. C signed the EPG on 15 October 2024 and both documents are witnessed by a general practitioner and nurse.
There was no challenge to the validity of the EPA and EPG at the hearing. Medical evidence indicates that C long struggled with cognitive impairment. She was formally diagnosed with dementia in December 2024 with the benefit of the MRI revealing brain changes consistent with Alzheimers.
There is a presumption of capacity and I do not need to reach any view about C's capacity to understand and execute these documents. I am satisfied for other reasons that the EPA and EPG must be revoked.
An attorney acting under an EPA accepts certain statutory obligations which are set out in s 107 of the GA Act.
Section 107 provides:
107.Obligations of donee
(1)The donee of an enduring power of attorney —
(a)shall exercise his powers as attorney with reasonable diligence to protect the interests of the donor and, if he fails to do so, he is liable to the donor for any loss occasioned by the failure;
(b)shall keep and preserve accurate records and accounts of all dealings and transactions made under the power;
(c)subject to section 109(2), may not renounce a power during any period of legal incapacity of the donor; and
(d)shall, if the donee becomes bankrupt, report that bankruptcy to the State Administrative Tribunal.
Penalty applicable to paragraph (b): $2 000[.]
As stated by Member Child in DH [2020] WASAT 100:
33In addition to the statutory obligations created in s 107 of the GA Act, the donees under an EPA have fiduciary obligations to the donor as agents of the donor.
34The objective of fiduciary duties is to 'preclude the fiduciary from being swayed by considerations of personal interest and from accordingly misusing the fiduciary position for personal advantage' and to ensure fiduciaries 'conduct themselves at a higher standard than the ordinary person'. The standard they impose is one of 'undivided loyalty by the fiduciary to the principal'. A fiduciary duty is a 'duty which impacts upon conscience by requiring the [agent] to treat the [principal's] interests as paramount' (Dal Pont GE, Law of Agency Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Australia 2014).
35The learned author goes on to say that:
[D]onees of powers of attorney ('attorneys') as fiduciary agents, must not exercise their authority in such a way contrary to the interests of their principal. So, like other agents, a donee of a power of attorney is, in the absence of a clear power to do so, prohibited from utilising that authority to pay personal debts, or make presents to himself or herself or to others of the principal's property.
Member Child further stated at [47]:
47In Re The Full Board of the Guardianship and Administration Board [2003] WASCA 268 His Honour, EM Heenan J when considering other provisions of the GA Act described at [43] - [44] the protective intention of the GA Act when considering dispositions which might be made:
43… it is obvious that the legislation is designed for the protection of adult persons whose faculties may be impaired, for any reason, and who are therefore in need of protection and assistance so as to ensure that their financial affairs and other welfare is not jeopardised by improvident, or ill-considered personal decisions or action, or by unscrupulous or ill-advised influence of relatives, friends and others who may deliberately or inadvertently exploit the vulnerability of the person in need of assistance and protection.
44… The emphasis is on conserving the property and financial resources of the disabled person to ensure that they are available for his or her own needs, welfare and enjoyment and are not dissipated. These seem to be the primary objectives of the legislation and all the provisions of the Act can be seen to have meaning and effect as leading towards the achievement of those purposes. In the main, these will be accomplished by conserving the resources and property of the person under administration for use to his or her own advantage or, in cases where expenditure or imminent disposition of property are necessary or advantageous, by scrutinising the transaction to see that it is justifiable or provident having regard to all the circumstances, bearing always in mind the continuing and future needs of the person whose estate is under administration.
48… the protective intent of the legislation is clear.
C's lack of capacity reinforces R's fiduciary obligations to her because of her complete reliance and dependence on her. Although R may have acted without unscrupulous intent she has not fulfilled the obligations upon her.
Firstly, R lodged a confusing assortment of undated, poorly identified bank accounts and an incomplete list of financial records in response to Tribunal orders. These materials show many unexplained withdrawals from C's accounts. Transactions during C's lengthy hospitalisation and the payment of utilities and rates for properties which C does not own raise particular concerns which R did not satisfactorily clarify.
R has failed to keep and preserve accurate records and accounts of all dealings and transactions made under the EPA in breach of the legal obligations under the GA Act
Secondly, R has not acted with reasonable diligence to protect C's interests. She has used the majority of C's estate to enhance the value of her own property without consideration for her future needs or personal wishes regarding her son.
Prior to losing capacity, there is no evidence that C intended to give R a large amount of money. To the contrary, her written wishes were to leave her entire estate to her disabled son.[14] The EPA makes no specific provision for gifting.
[14] Letter to Tribunal dated 23 December 2023.
R's decision to build a granny flat on her property entirely at C's expense gave rise to an obvious conflict, which she did not dispute. The fact that C would be able to live on R's property and gain benefit from this decision did not eliminate the conflict.
R could have taken steps to address the conflict but did not. She could have sought directions from the Tribunal before entering into the building contract.[15]
[15] GA Act, s 109.
R was aware of the conflict of interest and had consulted a lawyer about drafting a deed declaring the granny flat a gift from C to R. This did not proceed but the conflict was clearly apparent. There is no evidence that R sought independent legal advice on C's behalf or intended to repay her estate for the significant value she received.
There is no evidence that R weighed up any other relevant considerations on C's behalf, such as:
(1)The short-term benefit that C would likely obtain from the granny flat given that she is a very frail 79 year old with multiple comorbidities, high care needs including requiring two people to assist her with all transfers. There was a strong likelihood that C's care needs would soon exceed R's ability to care for C at home.
(2)If C is unable to continue living with R there is no agreement protecting her investment and enabling her to pay for alternative accommodation.
(3)The granny flat is described as two bedroom, two bathroom to provide accommodation for C's round the clock carers but there is no evidence that C can afford such care now that her estate is depleted by the cost of these building works.
(4)R's failure to notify Centrelink that she had depleted C's accounts as required by law. Centrelink would likely consider the withdrawal of $350,000 a large gift to R with potential repercussions on C's pension entitlements and eligibility for subsidised aged care in the future.
(5)Whether R should share the cost of the granny flat given the significant enhanced value to her property.
(6)The failure to acknowledge C's desire to leave her estate to her disabled son. R took no steps to legally recognise or protect C's interest in her property or undertake to repay her estate if the property was sold in the future, for instance.
By transferring C's money into accounts under her own name, R's actions were contrary to C's interests.
In summary, R did not keep clear records of the myriad transactions on C's accounts or particularise her transfers from C's accounts to an acceptable standard and breached the legal responsibilities of an attorney under the GA Act. R has failed to demonstrate careful consideration and understanding of C's financial situation including her future needs, failed to give any consideration to C's wishes for her son and cannot be said to have acted with reasonable diligence in respect of the conflict of interest.
The evidence establishes that R is unable to discharge her legal obligations and the EPA is not a less restrictive option to the making of an administration order.
The conflict of interest extends to the EPG, in particular decisions about C's accommodation needs.
There is no doubt that C lacks the capacity now to understand the ramifications of the granny flat contract, but I accept that she wishes for it to go ahead so she can live with R.
R has provided a home to C and I accept her evidence that she is genuine in her affections for C and that they are very close. However, the evidence is clear that C's estate has been significantly diminished since R has assumed management of her estate as her attorney acting under the EPA.
I accept the submission of the investigator which was on the whole not contradicted by R.
Administration order
I am satisfied that the presumption of capacity is displaced based on the medical and other evidence of the represented person's dementia and consequent cognitive impairment. I am satisfied and I find that the represented person is unable by reason of her dementia to make reasonable judgments about her estate and is in need of an administrator of her estate. For the reasons given, the EPA is not a less restrictive means by which her financial decision-making needs can be met.
I am satisfied that the represented person is in need of an administrator to manage her estate in her best interests.
Although not consistent with her wishes as expressed during the hearing, and in her past actions in appointing R to manage her finances or in her comments to the investigator when she expressed confidence in R's management of her affairs, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the represented person that the Public Trustee be appointed as the plenary administrator of her estate and that the EPA be revoked.
C has long provided a regular allowance to D for his social activities and I therefore include a gifting authority of $3,500 per annum to enable this to continue.
Guardianship
I am satisfied that the presumption that the represented person is capable of making reasonable judgments about her person is displaced. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the represented person has a dementia with significant cognitive impairment and is reliant on others for all her care needs to be met.
I am satisfied on the evidence of the health professionals, which is not in dispute, that the represented person is incapable of looking after her own health and safety, unable to make reasonable judgments about her person and is in need of oversight and care in the interests of her own health and safety.
The evidence clearly demonstrates that R has a conflict of interest in making decisions about where C shall live in the future as she has a financial interest in the granny flat being built on her property. For this reason, I am satisfied and I find that the EPG does not operate to meet the best interests of the represented person and should be revoked in the best interests of the represented person, despite her wishes.
I am satisfied and I find that the represented person is in need of a guardian to make decisions about her accommodation, medical treatment and appropriate support services.
As R has a conflict of interest relating to C's accommodation and no other person has indicated a willingness for appointment[16] as the represented person's guardian, I am satisfied that it is appropriate and in the best interests of the represented person that the Public Advocate be appointed her limited guardian for decisions concerning where C should live and with whom.
[16] Section 44(5) of the GA Act provides that the Public Advocate may only be appointed as guardian of the represented person where there is no other person who is suitable and willing to act.
R has indicated that she is willing to continue making decisions on C's behalf concerning treatment and services. This is supported by the investigator and consistent with C's wishes. I therefore appoint R as the limited guardian for those functions.
I am satisfied that the limited functions are sufficient to meet the current needs of the represented person and there is no need for a plenary order.
Duration of the orders
Although C's condition is progressive, I am satisfied that the orders should be made for two years at which time it would be appropriate to review if the conflicts of interest are satisfactorily resolved.
Orders
For the reasons given I made the following declarations and orders.
GAA 3955/2025
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [C] is:
(a)unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of her estate;
(b)in need of an administrator of her estate;
(c)incapable of looking after her own health and safety;
(d)unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person;
(e)in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety; and
(f)in need of a guardian.
Administration
2.The order made on 5 September 2025 pursuant to s 65 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) is revoked.
3.The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the represented person's estate with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
4.The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $3,500 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.
5.The administrator is directed to investigate all transactions made by the attorney [R] pursuant to the enduring power of attorney dated 15 November 2024.
6.The enduring power of attorney dated 15 November 2024 by which the represented person appointed [R] to be her attorney, is revoked.
7.The administration order is to be reviewed before 11 September 2027.
Guardianship
8.The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:
(a)to decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily; and
(b)to decide with whom the represented person is to live.
9.The Tribunal approves delegation by the Public Advocate of her functions as guardian of the represented person to an officer or employee employed in the Office of the Public Advocate.
10.[R] of [address] is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:
(a)to make treatment decisions for the represented person, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA); and
(b)to determine the services to which the represented person should have access.
11.It is declared that the represented person is not capable of making judgments for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Electoral Act 1907 (WA) relating to compulsory voting.
12.The guardianship order is to be reviewed before 11 September 2027.
GAA 3993/2025
On an application by [R] pursuant to s 110N of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) concerning an enduring power of guardianship dated 15 October 2024 by which [C] appointed [R] as her enduring guardian.
The Tribunal orders:
1.The enduring power of guardianship dated 15 October 2024 by which the represented party appointed [R] to be their guardian, is revoked.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS K Lang, MEMBER
16 OCTOBER 2025
0
2
2