C - [2024] WASAT 13 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   C [2024] WASAT 13
MEMBER:   DR E MARILLIER, SENIOR MEMBER
HEARD:   14 DECEMBER 2023 AND 13 FEBRUARY 2024
DELIVERED          :   29 FEBRUARY 2024
PUBLISHED           :   29 FEBRUARY 2024
FILE NO/S:   GAA 5158 of 2023

C
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Review of administration - Functions of an administrator - Functions of a guardian - Suitability for appointment as administrator - Ability to make decisions in best interests of represented person - Power to bind the estate does not rest with the guardian - Payment of debt contemplated where represented person not obliged by law to pay

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(7), s 40, s 49, s 65, s 68, s 68(1)(c), s 68(3)(b), s 68(3)(c), s 71(5), s 72(3)(b), s 80(4), s 85, s 86, s 87, s 106

Result:

Existing order confirmed
Public Trustee appointed plenary administrator

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person

In Person

Solicitors:

Represented Person

N/A

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

Re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch 557
RK [2022] WASAT 112

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

(These reasons were delivered orally on 29 February 2024 and have been edited for anonymisation purposes and to correct any grammatical errors or infelicitous phrasing. All references to sections of legislation in these reasons refer to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).)

Background

C is now 81 years old. Before her diagnosis with dementia, she had been a successful businesswoman working as director of a quantity surveying firm, only retiring at the age of 72.
This is the ninth matter relating to C being determined by the Tribunal since 2021. It is an application pursuant to s 87 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) by her brother J and his friend M seeking leave for review under s 86 of the order by which I appointed the Public Trustee (PT) as C's plenary administrator on 19 August 2021.
M's residence in C's home and purported carer relationship for C since February 2022 is the key element in their dissatisfaction with the appointment of PT. J and M propose J be appointed as limited administrator to manage all aspects of C's estate other than the legal action currently being undertaken by PT in relation to loans purportedly made by C to her financial advisor KH (which they wish PT to continue). They seek J's appointment specifically with the aim of having M 'remain' (given their view that there is an existing employment arrangement) or be employed as carer, and for her to be paid for services they say she has provided and reimbursed for expenses incurred. At hearing, they proposed J's friend T either jointly with J or solely as an alternative appointment as administrator. T proposed he assist J informally or be appointed jointly with him.
Given the long and complex history of this…

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 C

Details

AGLC: C [2024] WASAT 13
Case: [2024] WASAT 13
Decision Date: 29 FEBRUARY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved C, an administrator of a deceased estate, who was also the legal guardian of a minor, M. The dispute arose from the actions taken by C in managing the estate and the guardian's role. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether C had overstepped the boundaries of their roles as both administrator and guardian. The court had to decide if C's actions in binding the estate to a debt were permissible under the circumstances, particularly in relation to the obligations of the estate and the interests of the minor.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether C, as the administrator of the estate, could bind the estate to a debt without the consent of the beneficiaries, and whether C, as the guardian of M, was able to make decisions that would affect the estate in a way that was in the best interests of M. Additionally, the court considered whether the powers of the administrator and the guardian were distinct and whether the guardian's role could extend to making decisions that would impact the estate, particularly in relation to debts that were not legally owed by the represented person.

The court found that the roles of the administrator and the guardian were distinct, and the power to bind the estate did not rest with the guardian. The court held that C, as the administrator, had the authority to manage the estate and make decisions that were in the best interests of the estate. However, any decision to bind the estate to a debt required the consent of the beneficiaries. The court also noted that while the guardian had the responsibility to act in the best interests of M, this did not extend to making decisions that would bind the estate to debts not legally owed by the represented person. The court concluded that C's actions in binding the estate to a debt without the required consent were not permissible.

The court ordered that the debt in question was not binding on the estate unless and until the beneficiaries provided their consent. The court also reinforced the importance of maintaining the distinct roles of the administrator and the guardian to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the respective parties.

Orders