EA and KD, TA, LA, BA & VT - [2007] WASAT 3

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: HUMAN RIGHTS

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: EA and KD, TA, LA, BA & VT [2007] WASAT 3

MEMBER: MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER)
DR A MCCUTCHEON (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
MS J STANTON (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 3 OCTOBER 2006

DELIVERED : 5 JANUARY 2007

FILE NO/S: GAA 664 of 2006

BETWEEN: EA
Represented Person
AND
KD, TA, LA, BA & VT
Applicants

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Mental disability - Unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of estate - Lack of capacity to make complex financial decisions - Need for an administrator - Who should be appointed administrator

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 16, s 64, s 65, s 68, s 70, s 84

Result:

An administrator is appointed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : Mr M Rogers
Applicants: Mr A Macknay

Solicitors:

Represented Person : Michael Rogers & Associates
Applicants: McCallum Donovan Sweeney

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

An application for administration was made by the children of a 79yearold man, who, they said, was suffering from impaired decisionmaking. The man had previously sold his home, and had in a deposit account approximately $300 000 from the sale. The children were of the view that their father was no longer capable of managing these funds, and were concerned that the funds would not be preserved for his future care. It was proposed that one of the children be appointed the man's administrator.
Both the man and his partner, with whom he lived, disputed that he had lost capacity, and did not support the children becoming involved in the management of his finances.
An earlier, single member Tribunal had made an order giving the Public Trustee the powers of a plenary administrator in respect of the man's estate, pending the determination of his capacity to make reasonable judgments about his finances.
The application for administration was then further heard before a three member Tribunal.
The man was assessed by his general practitioner as capable, but was later assessed by a consultant geriatrician. The geriatrician's specialist opinion was that the man had a cognitive impairment, manifesting in severe memory deficits and a consequent inability to contextualise information necessary to consistently make financial decisions in his own best interests. The geriatrician was of the view that the man was no longer capable of making complex decisions of the type which would involve the management of his estate. The Tribunal agreed with that assessment.
The Tribunal decided to appoint the Public Trustee as administrator. It was the Tribunal's view that the son's suitability was compromised by the man's wishes and the difficult relationship he and his siblings had with the man's partner. It was not in the man's best interests for the administration of his estate to be contaminated with the current state of the family relationships. In this regard, the Tribunal agreed with the man's partner that there was a better chance of those relationships improving should the issue of estate be removed. Both the man's partner and his children would be in the position of putting their views before an independent administrator.
The man was legally represented at the hearing, as were his children as applicants. Applications for legal costs to be paid from the man's estate were made at the end of the hearing and the Tribunal's decision was reserved.

Background

These reasons relate to an application for administration for EA, a 79year-old man (represented person). The application was made by KD, TA, LA, BA and VT, five of the represented person's six children (applicants).
The application was first heard before a single member of the Tribunal on 18 April 2006. On that day, an order was made under s 65 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) giving the Public Trustee the powers of a plenary administrator in respect of the estate of the represented person, pending the determination of the question of his capacity to make reasonable judgments about his financial affairs.
The application was adjourned, and subsequently heard before a three member panel on 3 October 2006.
At the hearing on 3 October 2006, the represented person attended, as did his partner (PB). The represented person was represented by Mr Michael Rogers, his solicitor. The applicants attended and were represented by Mr Ashley Macknay, their solicitor. Also present was MT, a personal friend of PB, and JH, who introduced himself as a friend of the family.

Decision

At the hearing on 3 October 2006, the Tribunal determined that the represented person is, by reason of a mental disability, unable to make reasonable judgments in relation to his estate, and appointed the Public Trustee as his plenary administrator. Orders were made on the day of the hearing.
Applications for legal costs to be paid from the represented person's estate were reserved pending the receipt of submissions from the legal representatives.
These are the reasons for the decision of the Tribunal made on 3 October 2006.

The application for administration

The application for administration was lodged by the applicants in April 2006, in response to the represented person selling his home and, on settlement, being due approximately $305 000. The sale proceeds form the bulk of the represented person's estate. In their application, the applicants state that the represented person "… no longer has the mental capacity to take care of his personal financial affairs or manage his finances". The applicants propose that the sale proceeds " … should be placed in trust to be managed by the administrator with a budgeted amount to be paid to [the represented person] every fortnight".
The represented person and PB oppose the application.

The applicants' submissions

Various submissions and statements of evidence have been received from the applicants and their legal representative.
The applicants' representations are essentially this: the represented person's spouse died in February 2003 during a visit by them to the Eastern States to visit one of their sons. The represented person suffered a heart attack a week later, and it was noted by hospital staff that he appeared to be having problems with his short-term memory. This was also noticed by the son and his wife. Since that time, when the represented person has telephoned the son, he has appeared to have forgotten conversations he had a day or two earlier.
During the 2004 Christmas period, the applicants noticed that the represented person's mental health and memory had deteriorated further. He was seen by his general practitioner, Dr PH, in January 2005 and was diagnosed with the onset of dementia. In May 2005, the represented person suffered a stroke, but PB would always say he was doing fine.
The represented person's wife (the applicants' mother) had always managed their financial affairs prior to her death, as it was considered that the represented person's comprehension of monetary matters was very limited. When he returned from the Eastern States in 2003, it was decided that his daughter, KD, would manage his day-to-day finances. The represented person would send all his bills to KD which she would pay using internet banking. During that time and until March 2006, KD was authorised to have access to the represented person's bank account. In March 2006, the represented person appeared to have forgotten that KD had that authority (he did not believe anyone but he had authority to operate his account) and could not account for her removal.
In December 2005, KD had received a telephone call from the represented person saying that he had an offer on his home for $295 000. He was convinced he would not receive a better offer. The applicants were not persuaded and obtained a market appraisal of $318 000, for which sum the property was eventually sold. The represented person had given KD the authority to deal with the real estate agent and settlement agent, but in February 2006, the settlement agent stated that the authority had been withdrawn and that PB would be managing the represented person's affairs.
When questioned by the applicants what he intended to do with the proceeds of the sale of his property, the represented person is reported to have said that he would simply deposit the funds into an everyday bank account or invest the funds with "Centrelink".
It is the experience of the applicants that the represented person now has very poor short-term memory, and at times even forgets the names of his children. He is indecisive, needs regular prompting to complete a sentence, appears unable to process information, tends to agree with the opinion of the person he most recently spoke with, has uncustomary bursts of aggression directed at his children and is generally vague and distanced.
It is the wish of the applicants that the represented person's estate be secured so that, when he requires institutional care, there will be sufficient funds to provide a comfortable environment for him. They express a concern that he may be unduly influenced by PB and that he has turned against his children for no apparent reason (they say he has a belief that his children are trying to rob him of funds from the sale of his house). He appears to have recently revoked an enduring power of attorney executed by him in favour of his son, TA, in February 2006.
The applicants accept that the represented person is in a relationship with PB and that he lives with her.
The submission from the applicants is that the represented person is not able to make reasonable decisions about the settlement proceeds of his property, including how to best invest the funds and how to manage the funds so that they form part of a plan for his future care needs. He is now cognitively impaired and cannot adequately process decision-making for an estate valued at approximately $300 000, and this, combined with the fact that he has always left financial decisions to others, leaves him vulnerable to the use of his funds contrary to his long-term best interests. The represented person needs an administrator with plenary powers, as it would be difficult to compartmentalise the administration to account for his varying needs.
The submission of the applicants is that TA (eldest son) be appointed the represented person's administrator. He was the executor for his late mother's estate and is the named executor in a will made by the represented person in 2003. It is submitted that he has a good relationship with his father, and is able to act in his best interests. The appointment of TA would allow flexibility in the administration and minimise any costs. Counsel for the applicants submits further that, should the Tribunal decide that the Public Trustee ought to be appointed, the applicants would not "quarrel" with that determination and could work with it.

The submissions of the represented person and PB

The represented person and PB have provided a combined written statement to the Tribunal which, upon reading, is a statement in the voice of PB alone. PB has also provided "[PB] Notes July 2006 - Regarding [the represented person]".
The represented person and PB have known each other for over 20 years. They and their respective spouses were friends. After the death of the represented person's spouse in 2003, they again met, and by Christmas 2004, were spending a lot of time together (PB and her spouse had by then separated).
When the represented person sold his home in early 2006, he had nowhere to live, and so he stayed with PB, where he has lived since. Around that time, the represented person and PB notified Centrelink that they were now a couple. KD had wanted them to say that the represented person was a boarder with PB, and for him to place the funds from the sale of the house in a family trust. TA had communicated his agreement with the course taken by the represented person and PB.
Soon after, KD had persuaded the represented person to execute an enduring power of attorney. He and PB had then sought legal advice, upon which the power of attorney was revoked. The advice from the solicitor was that if the represented person was, in fact, suffering from dementia (as suggested by his children), then the instrument was, in any event, invalid.
The represented person did not want KD to have access to the funds from the sale of the house, and arranged to open a new bank account in his own name. PB says that the represented person asked her to take him to the bank and revoke KD's access, after talking with the bank, the settlement agency and Centrelink. The represented person was assured by the financial officer at Centrelink that his funds were quite adequate for his future, and if invested at a decent rate of interest, he would be able to live off the interest earned.
The represented person has paid from those funds, $4870.97 to pay out his car loan and $3000 to his solicitor for legal advice.
The represented person and PB, in their combined statement, dispute the examples given of the alleged problems with his memory. For example, at par 27:
" … [the represented person] has suffered speech problems since the date of his stroke and also needs time to take in information that is told to him and to digest that information. If information is written down [the represented person] will take the time to read it and will be able to make positive decision [sic]."
In her written notes, PB states:
" … [the represented person] knows very well what is going on and has refused top [sic] hand his money to the kids. He knows it is his and because he will not give it to them they are saying he has 'lost his marbles'."
The represented person and PB say that both TA (son) and VT (daughter) have only seen him infrequently; TA for two short periods over the last three years, and VT during Christmas 2003 and 2005. They state that KD (daughter) has sought to gain control of the represented person's finances, and has been aggressive and demanding in her attempts to do so. In her written notes, PB states:
"I have watched [the represented person] daily read statements and seen him very distressed. We are two elderly people who should not be treated in this cruel fashion. He feels that he will never had [sic] his family back in the way it was before. They laughed at him when he sat them down before they brought him back here and he told then that he did not have dementia and that I was not ripping him off money-wise."
And further:
"While [the represented person] was away [TA] and one of his other sisters, [LA] came to our house to get a warm jumper and [the represented person]'s medication and told me that 'they should have put him in a nursing home when their mum died and that it would have saved all this trouble'."
And finally:
"[BA]'s statement shows that he believes that my influence has made [the represented person]'s mind up to change his ideas to control his own money and, to me, seems to give the impression that I am trying to get [the represented person]'s money. I have my own home and it is worth more than [the represented person]'s was. [The represented person] did not want to sell his house and did not want his money to go into the family trust and not be controlled by himself."
Counsel for the represented person submits that the preference of his client is that he manages his own affairs. If that is not possible, he would want PB to do so, with his third choice being the Public Trustee. The represented person does not want his family involved because of the stress and the disharmony that has occurred.
PB submits that she would be happy to assist the represented person but she would not want to be in a position of having to sign documents on his behalf which she says would cause too much conflict with his children. She says she wants the represented person and his children to re-establish their relationships.

Other submissions

JH says that he has known the represented person's family for 40 years. His experience is that the family is very close and that the children would not do anything to hurt their father.
Over the last year, JH has had weekly contact with the represented person, and is of the view that he is able to manage his day-to-day affairs.
MT says that she has known PB for 20 years and has found her to be ethically, morally and legally above reproach.

The represented person's capacity

The Tribunal must first be satisfied that the represented 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, before it can consider whether he is in need of an administrator (s 64(1) of the GA Act). A person is presumed to be capable until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal (s 4(2)(b)).
As detailed above, the question of the represented person's capacity is in contention between the represented person, PB and the applicants.
The Tribunal had a number of assessments and reports provided to it. In addition, Dr RC, consultant geriatrician, gave evidence at the hearing. The written reports, in chronological order, are:

"Progress Notes" of Dr PH, General Practitioner for the period 9 April 2003 to 14 February 2006 including the results of a CT scan of the brain on 17 May 2004. The represented person last saw Dr PH on 24 March 2005.

The relevant entries are as follows:
•13 May 2004 - "tongue involuntary movements when concentrating on other things, SL early intervention tremor RT hand, diagnostic imaging requested";
•24 May 2004 - "patient advised by reception (KD 24/05/2004): All results OK, imaging - (Coll; 19/05/2004) SMALL VESSEL DISEASE BUT SINUSES OK";
•24 May 2004 - "patient advised by reception (KD 21/05/2004): All results OK, TF - 0 (Thyroid Function Test) - OK (Coll: 20/05/2004) CT BRAIN NO ALTZHEIMERS";
•4 January 2005 - " … discussion with daughters … reports poor memory … sleeps forgets stove on have to watch this, nearest daughter is in Geraldton";
•13 January 2005 - "minimental state 20-moderate dementia emerging".

10 May 2005, Dr DR, Consultant Neurologist to Dr PH, General Practitioner

This report refers to the represented person presenting to a hospital emergency department in March 2005 with a sudden onset of garbled speech. He had not fully recovered and continued to have difficulty with word finding. He had normal comprehension but his writing had deteriorated. The presentation was stated to be consistent with a dominant hemisphere infarct resulting in motor aphasia.

21 March 2006 Dr RT, General Practitioner to the represented person's solicitor

Dr RT states:
"On 8 March 2006, [the represented person] underwent a Mental State Examination. This examination is recognised by the medical profession as a reliable indication of a patient's mental state. In particular, it is a very good indicator of the presence or otherwise of dementia. I wish to advise that [the represented person] performed extremely well in this test, indicating that his mental state is sound and that he exhibits no evidence of dementia or any other mental incapacity."

18 April 2006 "Doctor's Guide" (Tribunal form) by Dr RT, General Practitioner

Dr RT states that he first saw the represented person in March 2005 and last saw him on 20 April 2006. He confirms his assessment of March 2006 (above) that the represented person is capable of making "… rational decisions with regard to his health, living situation and financial affairs". He considers the represented person also capable of executing an enduring power of attorney.

10 July 2006, DR RC, Consultant Geriatrician to Dr RT

Dr RC saw the represented person in June and July 2006. Dr RC identifies cognitive deficits " … but these are mild". Whilst it was not clear to Dr RC whether the represented person has "dementia syndrome", his cognitive deficits " … affect his ability to recall recent events and provide context for himself regarding these events. However, these cognitive deficits may not affect his ability to manage day to day finances and a bank account". Dr RC doubts whether the represented person " … would be capable of managing more complex financial circumstances, however, these complex circumstances do not exist for him at present". Dr RC assesses the represented person as likely to be capable of executing an enduring power of attorney if given the "necessary education".

17 September 2006, Dr RC to the applicants' solicitor after having read the witness statements of the represented person's children (applicants)

Dr RC states that the witness statements are consistent with the scores on the cognitive tests he administered to the represented person and also with " … my general impression of his mental state from his visits to my office". They are suggestive of the represented person having dementia. There is no evidence to indicate that the represented person could not manage day-to-day financial matters; "however, I doubt that he would be able to make the necessary decisions related to managing a large amount of money that requires considered investment decisions and that may have an affect [sic] on his pension entitlements".
Dr RC concludes:
"Based on the evidence available to me, including my own observations, and assuming that all of the information in the witness statements is accurate, I believe [the represented person] is in need of a substitute decision maker with respect to complex financial management to reduce his risk of coming to financial harm. In this context, management of the money from the sale of his house may represent complex financial management."
Dr RC assesses the represented person as showing some understanding of the effect of an enduring power of attorney but opines whether allowing him this "freedom" would be in his best interests considering his " … indecisiveness and propensity to lack of judgement".

26 September 2006, Dr RC to the represented person's solicitor after having read the combined statement of the represented person and PB

Dr RC acknowledges that the statement of the represented person and PB differs from that of the applicants in respect of the perceptions of certain events, and if he were to dismiss all statements as entirely subjective and not to be considered then, "I would be left with the cognitive scores and my impression of his mental state from talking to him, to determine a diagnosis".
Dr RC accepts that the represented person's speech problems likely result from his stroke rather than a cognitive problem due to degenerative disease.
Dr RC states:
"If I ignore all comments of family and friends on the basis that they are subjective then my conclusion is that [the represented person] has cognitive deficits based on the tests I have done and this is likely to affect his ability to function. Another view is that the weight of evidence from the statements from [the represented person]'s family indicates that he has had little to do with management of finances over the course of his life. Your client's statement does not seem to consistently disagree with this view. In consideration of these two points ie deficits in cognition and lack of financial expertise, it seems reasonable to form the view that [the represented person] will need some ongoing oversight of his affairs. On [the] three occasions I spoke to [the represented person] he had very little knowledge of the circumstances of his situation, the sequence of recent events or the role of the Tribunal in his affairs. In my letter to [Dr RT] dated the 10^th of July, I stated that I believed him capable of managing a bank account. I am less confident of that now given the evidence from the family. I attach weight to these statements because they are most consistent with my own views of [the represented person] from the office visits.
The other significant factor is that [the represented person] has not made any comments to refute the statements of his family members. He has relied on [PB] to act for him. I suspect that he has insufficient memory of the events and a grasp of the facts to do so. If the contention that he is fully capable is considered, then it seems natural that he would make some attempt to respond to the statement of his family himself rather than relying on others to do so. This adds further to the view that [the represented person] needs assistance with matters that require higher cognitive function."
Dr RC states that he is less confident of his earlier assessment that the represented person is capable of executing an enduring power of attorney. He states further the concern of the represented person that, should he not have control of his money, it would not be protected.

The oral evidence of Dr RC

Dr RC says that, in his view, the represented person does not have the capacity to consider all possible choices that might be available for a particular decision. When asked whether this is based on cognition or memory, Dr RC states:
"Well, he has a manifest memory deficit, both on the basis of the office cognitive testing I administered, and also in terms of his ability to remember the events that have transpired since late last year. He appears to have very little ability to assimilate all the events that have happened, and put them into a contextual form." (T:15)
When asked what he meant when he said in his first report, dated 10 July 2006, that complex [financial] circumstances did not then exist for the represented person, Dr RC said he was referring to the fact that there was no need to sell assets, which would have been a complex financial circumstance. Dr RC says that, in his experience, it is unusual for a retired person to have as much as $300 000 invested in a term deposit.

The Tribunal's findings and decision

The Tribunal is satisfied, on the evidence, that the represented person has a mental disability manifesting in severe memory deficits and a consequent inability to contextualise information necessary to consistently make financial decisions in his own best interests. The Tribunal prefers the assessments of Dr RC, which is congruent with the other evidence, particularly of the represented person's children who have witnessed a decline in the represented person's mental functioning since 2003.
The Tribunal does not give much weight to the assessment of Dr RT relative to the assessment of Dr RC. Apart from the consistency with the other evidence, Dr RC is a specialist medical practitioner for older people and has had the benefit of making his nuanced assessment with the benefit of testing the represented person over a period of time (to test whether the represented person is able to learn and retain information), and with the benefit of statements by the applicants and PB.
The represented person has been unable to give a clear account of his circumstances, either by way of written statement or orally at the hearing. The Tribunal agrees with Dr RC, in that this is likely explained by the represented person having an inadequate memory of events and comprehension of facts to enable him to do so. It may be, as PB asserts, that given time to assimilate information, the represented person can have a say in some decisions, but the Tribunal finds this insufficient to conclude that he is now able to make decisions autonomously after considering the alternatives available to him and their consequences. The Tribunal suspects that PB, either consciously or unconsciously, "fills in the gaps" in the represented person's decision-making in their daily lives as their "combined statement" indicates. This need not be seen as a negative influence but simply a possible explanation of a situation where one person in a relationship suffers from a deteriorating mental state.
The represented person has an estate of nearly $300 000, the bulk of which is cash currently held on deposit. There are two aspects of that estate which require attention and which, in the Tribunals' view, fall in the area of complex decision-making as described by Dr RC. The first of these is how to prudently invest the funds to secure the best returns. If, ultimately, this is a decision to continue to place the funds on deposit, then the process to get to that point would involve a consideration of other forms of investment, their benefits and drawbacks. The second aspect, and which is linked to the first, is to plan for the represented person's care needs (given the reasonable assumption that these needs will increase as his mental state declines), and what funds might be required and when.
The Tribunal finds that the represented person is no longer able, because of his cognitive impairment, to make these decisions in his own best interests. Moreover, the decisions are not static; they will have to be made in an ongoing way as the represented person's circumstances change.
There is no less restrictive alternative to the appointment of an administrator (s 64(1)(b) and s 4(2)(c) of the GA Act). The decisions that need to be made can only be made by a person with the authority that would otherwise rest with the represented person, had he still the capacity to make the decisions described above. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the represented person is capable of executing an enduring power of attorney, but even so, would not consider such an instrument, in the present circumstances, to be in his best interests.
The evidence suggests that the represented person can still, at this stage, cope with facets of his day-to-day expenditure. It is the view of the Tribunal, however, that given the represented person's deteriorating mental state, this will best be accommodated by granting the administrator plenary powers and having the administrator decide, from time to time, to what extent the then capacity of the represented person allows for independence in decision-making (see s 70(2) of the GA Act).
As detailed earlier in these reasons, submissions have been made as to who should be appointed the represented person's administrator. Section 68 of the GA Act gives the Tribunal some guidance in this determination. It reads:
"68. Who may be appointed administrator
(1)An administrator (including a joint administrator) shall be -
(a)an individual of or over the age of 18 years; or
(b)a corporate trustee,
who has consented to act and who, in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal -
(c)will act in the best interests of the person in respect of whom the application is made; and
(d)is otherwise suitable to act as the administrator of the estate of that person.
(2)The State Administrative Tribunal shall not appoint as administrator a corporate trustee that is a trustee company under the Trustee Companies Act 1987 unless it is satisfied that -
(a)there is an individual who would otherwise be appointed as administrator and that individual has in writing requested the appointment of that trustee company; or
(b)the person in respect of whom the application is made has made a will appointing the trustee company as executor and the will remains unrevoked at the time of the appointment.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1), the State Administrative Tribunal shall take into account as far as is possible -
(a)the compatibility of the proposed appointee with the person in respect of whom the application is made and with the guardian (if any) of that person;
(b)the wishes of that person; and
(c)whether the proposed appointee will be able to perform the functions proposed to be vested in the administrator.
(4)The fact that a person is the guardian of a person does not disqualify him from being appointed as the administrator of the estate of that person.
(5)Except where he is appointed to act jointly with another person or other persons, the State Administrative Tribunal shall not appoint the Public Advocate as an administrator unless there is no other individual or corporate trustee who is suitable and willing to act."
TA (son) is proposed as administrator. PB has said she wants to continue to assist the represented person, but not in a formal capacity, as it is her view that this would cause too much conflict with the represented person's children. The represented person has stated, both personally and through his counsel, that he does not want his children involved in the management of his financial affairs. Both the applicants and the represented person would not oppose the appointment of the Public Trustee.
There is enough evidence to show that the relationship between the represented person and his children has broken down. The conduct of the application for administration is indicative of this fact. It is well recognised by PB, who is in the difficult position of caring for the represented person, dealing with the pressures of his cognitive decline and the concerns of his children. It is difficult also for the represented person's children, who wish to ensure his estate is conserved for his expected, increasing care needs into the future.
The Tribunal accepts that PB and the represented person's children have his best interests at heart, although with differing perceptions as to how that might be achieved. It is for this reason that the Tribunal has decided to appoint the Public Trustee as the represented person's plenary administrator. It is the Tribunal's view that TA's suitability is compromised by the represented person's wishes and the difficult relationship he and his siblings have with PB. It is not in the represented person's best interests for the administration of his estate to be contaminated with the current state of the family relationships. In this regard, the Tribunal agrees with PB that there is a better chance of those relationships improving should the issue of the estate be removed. Both PB and the represented person's children will be in the position of putting their views before an independent administrator. Hopefully, over time, those views will be in agreement.
The Tribunal has decided to make the order for the maximum time available to it, namely five years (s 84 of the GA Act) on the basis that the represented person's cognition will not improve. It is not for the Tribunal to speculate when family relationships might improve sufficiently to enable a family member to possibly take on the role of administrator. Should that time arrive, a review of the order can be requested.

Application for costs

Applications for legal costs to be paid from the estate of the represented person pursuant to s 16(4) of the GA Act have been made and the Tribunal's decision is reserved.

I certify that this and the preceding [73] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J MANSVELD, MEMBER