ED and ID [2015] WASAT 123

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2015] WASAT 123
Published:	02/11/2015
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:3561/2015	Heard:	29 OCTOBER 2015
Coram:	JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) MS D QUINLAN (MEMBER)	Delivered:	29/10/15
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for review dismissed Determination to dismiss application by applicant for filing and service of records and accounts by respondents affirmed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ED ID LD-G
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Extension of time in which to seek review by Full Tribunal of determination dismissing application for records and accounts kept by donees of dealings and transactions in connection with enduring power of attorney Whether 'good reason' for making request out of time Whether applicant has a 'proper interest' in the matter Whether some reason requiring or justifying order for filing and service of records and accounts
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3(1) ('determination'), s 17A, s 17A(1), s 17A(2), s 109(1), s 109(1)(a), s 109(1)(b) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27
Case References:	Di Virgilio v McCleary (2012) WASC 437 EW [2010] WASAT 91; (2010) 72 SR (WA) 49 KS [2008] WASAT 29
Summary	The applicant applied for an extension of time in which to seek review by a Full Tribunal of a determination of a single member to dismiss the applicant's application for intervention in relation to an enduring power of attorney (EPA) by which the applicant's mother appointed his brother and sister to be her attorneys. The donor had passed away. The applicant sought an order that the donees file with the Tribunal and serve on him a copy of all records and accounts kept by them of dealings and transactions made by them in connection with the EPA. He alleged that the donees had transferred all the donor's property into their possession and control and used the property for their own benefit.,The Full Tribunal determined that the applicant had 'good reason' for making the request for review 33 days out of time, as he had written to the Tribunal about a week after the determination indicating that he wished to 'appeal' once he had accessed the transcript or the recording of the hearing and he sought review within a reasonable period after receiving the full recording.,However, the Tribunal dismissed the application for review, because the applicant did not have a 'proper reason' in the matter and there was no reason requiring or justifying an order requiring the donees to file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant a copy of all records and accounts kept by the donees of dealings and transactions in connection with the EPA.,The applicant did not have a proper interest in the matter, because he had no relationship with his mother during the last 15 years of her life (during which period she executed the EPA and it operated, and…

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 ED and ID

Details

AGLC: ED and ID [2015] WASAT 123
Case: [2015] WASAT 123
Decision Date: 29 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of ED and ID, the parties involved were ED, the applicant, and ID, the respondents. The dispute centred around ED's application for records and accounts kept by the respondents in relation to an enduring power of attorney. ED sought an extension of time to seek review by the Full Tribunal of a determination that dismissed ED's application for the records and accounts. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court had to decide whether ED had a good reason for making the request out of time and whether ED had a proper interest in the matter. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there was some reason that required or justified an order for the filing and service of the records and accounts. The legal issues involved interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and understanding the principles governing the extension of time in such matters.

The court found that ED did not have a good reason for making the request out of time. The court also determined that ED did not have a proper interest in the matter. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was no reason that required or justified an order for the filing and service of the records and accounts. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, and the determination to dismiss the application for the records and accounts by the respondents was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for review dismissed

Determination to dismiss application by applicant for filing and service of records and accounts by respondents affirmed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.