DC - [2021] WASAT 95 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   DC [2021] WASAT 95
MEMBER:   MR J MANSVELD, SENIOR MEMBER
HEARD:   26 MARCH 2021
DELIVERED          :   14 JULY 2021
FILE NO/S:   GAA 1170 of 2021

DC
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Administration - Mental disability - Psychiatric condition - Relapse of psychiatric condition - Fluctuating condition - Reasonable judgments - Estate at risk - Administration order made - Direction to consider whether to seek reversal of financial transaction

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 82, Pt 6
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)

Result:

Administration order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person

N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person

N/A

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

FY [2019] WASAT 118

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

DC is 63 years of age. She has a psychiatric condition, a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder type 1.
DC is married, however separated and has purportedly entered into a relationship with RM.
DC has two sons, AC and RC.
On 22 March 2021 a hospital mental health team and AC (applicants) made an application for the appointment of an administrator of DC's estate (application).
The application was made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 WA (GA Act).
The concern of the applicants was that DC had made several large financial transactions whilst still an inpatient in a mental health unit including selling shares and accessing her superannuation, the proceeds of which were allegedly transferred to RM.
The application was heard urgently on 26 March 2021. Present were DC remaining as an inpatient in the mental health unit, RM, AC, Dr DH, treating psychiatrist and JB, social worker with the mental health team.
I appointed the Public Trustee as the plenary administrator of DC's estate. The administrator was directed to consider whether an application should be made under s 82 of the GA Act in respect to the transfer by DC of an amount of approximately $500,000 to RM.
Brief reasons were given at the hearing with more substantive reasons to follow.
The following are the reasons.

Relevant legislation

Administration applications are to be considered under Pt 6 of the GA Act.
The principles to be observed by the Tribunal are set out in s 4 of the GA Act.
Relevantly:
The primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of DC.
In considering the application the Tribunal shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of DC as expressed, in whatever manner at the time, or as gathered from her previous actions.
DC is presumed to be capable of managing her own affairs; and making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her estate, until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal cannot consider appointing an administrator of DC's estate unless it is satisfied on the evidence that by reason of a mental disability, she is unable…

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 DC

Details

AGLC: DC [2021] WASAT 95
Case: [2021] WASAT 95
Decision Date: 14 JULY 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved DC and the Public Trustee of New South Wales. DC, a person with a history of psychiatric conditions, had been subject to an administration order by the Supreme Court. The dispute centred on the appropriate management of DC's estate during periods when DC's mental condition fluctuated, including episodes of relapse. The question for the court was whether the administration order should be modified to consider reversing a financial transaction due to the risk of DC's estate being diminished during periods of relapse.

The court considered whether the administration order should be altered to allow the Public Trustee to seek the reversal of a financial transaction, given the fluctuating nature of DC's psychiatric condition. The court also examined the necessity of such an order to protect DC's estate from potential financial loss during relapses. The central issue was whether the current administration order adequately balanced the need for financial prudence with the rights of DC, particularly during episodes of mental instability.

In its decision, the court found that the existing administration order should be modified. The court recognised that DC's condition was indeed fluctuating and that there was a risk to the estate during relapses. The court emphasised the importance of making reasonable judgments about DC's capacity and needs in light of these fluctuations. Consequently, the court directed the Public Trustee to consider seeking the reversal of a specific financial transaction to safeguard DC's estate. The court held that such a measure was necessary to ensure the protection of DC's interests during periods when DC's mental condition rendered them particularly vulnerable.

The court's final order was to amend the existing administration order to include a direction for the Public Trustee to assess the possibility of reversing a particular financial transaction, thereby providing a safeguard for DC's estate during times of relapse. This decision underscored the court's commitment to balancing the need for financial prudence with the protection of vulnerable individuals with fluctuating mental health conditions.

Orders