FC and PUBLIC TRUSTEE
[2006] WASAT 133
•24 MAY 2006
FC and PUBLIC TRUSTEE [2006] WASAT 133
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 133 | |
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:1055/2005 | 28 SEPTEMBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT) MS C HILL (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) MS H LESLIE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 24/05/06 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | 1. The appointment of the Public Trustee as plenary administrator for FC be confirmed for a further five years. 2. Applications for guardianship and directions be dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | FC PUBLIC TRUSTEE |
Catchwords: | Guardianship Administration Capacity |
Legislation: | Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 4(1), s 4(2)(a), s 4(2)(b), s 4(2)(c), s 4(2)(d), s 4(2)(f), s 43(1)(c), s 64(1), s 64(1)(b) Mental Health Act 1996 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal 2004 (WA), s 40(1) |
Case References: | FC [2005] WASAT 258 Nil |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : FC and PUBLIC TRUSTEE [2006] WASAT 133 MEMBER : JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT)
- MS C HILL (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
MS H LESLIE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
- GAA 1056 of 2005
GAA 1057 of 2005
GAA 561 of 2005
- Represented Person
AND
PUBLIC TRUSTEE
Applicant
Catchwords:
Guardianship - Administration - Capacity
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 4(1), s 4(2)(a), s 4(2)(b), s 4(2)(c), s 4(2)(d), s 4(2)(f), s 43(1)(c), s 64(1), s 64(1)(b)
(Page 2)
Mental Health Act 1996 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal 2004 (WA), s 40(1)
Result:
1. The appointment of the Public Trustee as plenary administrator for FC be confirmed for a further five years.
2. Applications for guardianship and directions be dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Represented Person : Self-represented
Applicant : Mr M Cox
Solicitors:
Represented Person : Self-represented
Applicant : Office of the Public Trustee
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
FC [2005] WASAT 258
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 The represented person, FC, was first made the subject of an administration order in June 1997 when the former Guardianship and Administration Board appointed the Public Trustee as the limited administrator to hold the certificate of title relating to FC's residence. Thereafter, FC remained under various administration orders concerning the management of her financial affairs. On 26 March 2003, the Public Trustee was appointed the plenary administrator of FC's estate.
2 On 16 March 2005, following the commencement of the State Administrative Tribunal, that plenary administration order was reviewed and confirmed by the Tribunal.
3 Following the decision of the Tribunal in March 2005, both the represented person and the Public Trustee made further applications concerning FC. The represented person applied for an order that the plenary administration order be revoked. The Public Trustee applied for review of the administration order, the appointment of a guardian for FC and for certain directions concerning the expenditure of funds on behalf of FC in the event that the administration order remained in place.
4 The Tribunal heard the various applications on 28 September 2005 and following a hearing dismissed the various applications, and confirmed the plenary administration order made by the Tribunal in March 2005.
5 The Tribunal found that by reason of the mental health of the represented person, she was a person for whom an administration order and a guardianship order could be made. The Tribunal considered that there was a need for an administrator to be appointed to make decisions about the financial affairs of the represented person because she was incapable of making reasonable judgments in respect of such matters. However, the Tribunal did not consider on all the evidence before it, that there was a need to appoint a guardian for the represented person. Having regard to the present circumstances of the represented person, which included her current admission to Graylands Hospital, and the likely circumstances if and when she should be discharged from hospital and resident again in the community - whereby she would receive a range of assistance from a case manager (Mental Health Services), health professionals and friends - she would not then be in need of a guardian.
(Page 4)
6 In those circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed FC's application for revocation of the plenary administration order, confirmed the appointment of the Public Trustee as administrator (to be reviewed by 27 September 2010) and dismissed the Public Trustee's applications for the appointment of a guardian and for directions concerning the expenditure of funds on behalf of the represented person.
Applications
7 The applications before the Tribunal for determination are:
1. an application by FC (FC's application) for the review (and revocation) of the order for administration made 16 March 2005 by which the Public Trustee was confirmed as plenary administrator for FC (the administration order); and
2. applications by the Public Trustee for:
(i) the review of the administration order;
(ii) the appointment of a guardian for FC; and
(iii) directions.
Previous Orders
9 Orders for guardianship and administration were made by the former Guardianship and Administration Board (the former Board) with respect to FC in the past, prior to the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) from 24 January 2005, as follows.
(Page 5)
10 On 26 June 1997, the Public Trustee was appointed limited administrator to hold the certificate of title relating to FC's residence (the property) until further order.
11 That limited administration order was confirmed on 12 December 1997.
12 On 16 January 1998, additional orders were made requiring the Public Trustee to place a protective caveat on the property and to investigate and report to the former Board regarding the outcome of a transaction said to have been entered into by FC concerning the property.
13 On 9 March 1998, the Public Trustee was appointed plenary administrator of FC's estate for 2 years.
14 On 15 April 1998, the Public Trustee, as plenary administrator, was directed to undertake a number of steps concerning and connected to the potential sale of the property. FC's application for a review of the plenary appointment was dismissed.
15 On 25 August 1998, the plenary administration order was revoked and substituted by a limited order pursuant to which the Public Trustee was to sell the property, maintaining the protective caveat until sale, and to purchase another property for FC if required.
16 On 5October 2000, that order was confirmed for a further 5 years in a reworded form with the additional rider that FC and her son were to be consulted in the processes.
17 On 26 March 2003, that order was revoked and replaced with a plenary administration order in favour of the Public Trustee and a direction that the administrator liaise with FC's son in relation to the sale and any future purchase.
18 On 18 August 2003, directions were made authorising certain payments to be made by the administrator to FC's son.
19 Subsequent to the making of these orders, the jurisdiction of the former Board was assumed by the State Administrative Tribunal as of 24 January 2005. On 16 March 2005, that plenary administration order in favour of the Public Trustee was reviewed and confirmed by the Tribunal with further review ordered by 16 March 2010.
20 The Public Trustee's applications and FC's application were made after this and came on for hearing before the Tribunal on 17 August 2005
(Page 6)
- and were adjourned for further hearing on 28 September 2005 with ancillary orders being made regarding the making of an application for legal aid on behalf of FC, the provision of copy documents to various parties, and the requirement that any submission to be made on behalf of FC be lodged in writing with the Tribunal and served on the Public Trustee and Public Advocate by 23 September 2005. It is to be noted that FC was ultimately refused legal aid for the purpose of representation at the hearing.
21 The Tribunal convened on 28 September 2005 to hear the matter. As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal dealt with an application made by letter on FC's behalf by one SW, a Member of Parliament who had been assisting her. That application sought that the Tribunal make an order under s 40(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) to enable the legal representation of FC. The Tribunal, for the reasons set out in the transcript, determined that, in all the circumstances, no such order should be made and that the matters before it should proceed.
Background
22 FC is a 78 year old retired woman who is said to suffer from a long term delusional psychiatric disorder that impairs her judgment. She disputes the existence of the disorder and the need for any orders. She has an adult son and daughter from whom she is now estranged. She resides in rental accommodation. The Public Trustee has for some years managed her affairs. This was first implemented in 1997 at a time when FC was said to be putting her assets at risk by attempting to sell the unit she then owned in order to pursue certain plans based on delusional beliefs. Her son, PS, had put money into the property at the time of its acquisition and this lead to a dispute and ultimately to the estrangement of the two. The property was ultimately sold, the dispute settled by the Public Trustee, and FC's portion of funds invested with the Public Trustee.
23 At the time of the hearing, FC is presently in Graylands Hospital. This was her fifth admission by reason of deteriorated mental state in the period 2004-2005. The particulars of those admissions are set out in the report of the Graylands social worker, AS, dated 6 September 2004, referred to further below.
24 The hearing was attended by a number of people. They were FC, her friend PG, FC's son PS, Dr Nathan Gibson from Graylands Hospital, and Ms Kanthi Perera, a social worker attached to Avro Clinic (the mental health clinic responsible for FC's care when she was living in the
(Page 7)
- community), all of whom gave evidence to the Tribunal. Mr Mark Cox, a solicitor, made submissions on behalf of the Public Trustee. Three other members of the Public Trustee's staff also attended the hearing. Mr Prem-Tej Sacha made submissions on behalf of the Public Advocate. Ms Janice Hawker and Ms Bev Turner from The Office of the Public Advocate also attended the hearing, as did a Nurse Sarah Aishen, and a social worker, Mr Azlee Sultan, both from Graylands Hospital.
25 The Tribunal also had the benefit of extensive written submissions from the Public Trustee and a number of clinical reports, including a report dated 17 August 2005 from Dr Gibson, two reports from Mr Sultan dated respectively 21 July 2005 and 6 September 2005. The Tribunal also received various reports filed in earlier proceedings and a concise summary of the same is contained in the previous Reasons for Decision handed down by the Tribunal in March 2005 when the last substantive orders were made: see FC [2005] WASAT 258.
Capacity
26 The Tribunal must consider the issue of capacity as a precursor to the consideration of the application for orders relating to an adult person.
27 Section 4 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) states:
"(1) In dealing with proceedings commenced under this Act, the Tribunal shall observe the principles set out in subsection (2).
(2) ...
(b) Every person shall be presumed to be capable of –
(i) looking after his own health and safety;
(ii) making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(iii) managing his own affairs; and
(iv) making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate,
28 Section 43 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 states:
(Page 8)
- "(1) Subject to section 4, where the [SAT] is satisfied that a person in respect of whom an application for a guardianship order is made under section 40 -
(a) has attained the age of 18 years
(b) is –
(i) incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(ii) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or
(iii) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others;
and
(c) is in need of a guardian
the Tribunal may by order declare the person to be in need of a guardian, and if it does so shall appoint -
(d) a person to be a plenary guardian or a limited guardian and, if it is expedient, a person to be an alternate guardian; or
(e) persons to be joint plenary guardians or joint limited guardians,
as the case may require, of the person in respect of whom the application is made."
29 Section 64(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 states that, before making an administration order, the Tribunal must be satisfied that a proposed represented person:
" ... is unable, by reason of mental disability to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate ... " and "is in need of an administrator of his estate".
Evidence
30 The Tribunal had before it medical and other reports as outlined above. The Tribunal noted in particular the evidence of Dr Gibson given by report dated 17 August 2005. The contents of the report are incorporated by reference in these reasons but will not be recited in full.
(Page 9)
31 The Tribunal also had the benefit of additional evidence from Dr Gibson who attended the hearing. Dr Gibson went on to say that, subsequent to his report (which was made when FC was living in the community), FC had been admitted again to Graylands Hospital following deterioration in her mental health consequent upon her cessation of treatment. When admitted she was "clearly psychiatrically unwell" with serious psychosis in the context of her delusional disorder. She required involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act 1996 (WA). He stated that, having been restarted on her medication, FC improved significantly but would need a further period of weeks in hospital and, thereafter, follow-up upon her discharge back into the community and follow-up on a Community Treatment Order (CTO). His plan was to extend her involuntary status on the day of the hearing for a further 6 months.
32 Dr Gibson confirmed FC's diagnosis and gave evidence at some length concerning the risks to her health and safety and her financial position that he perceived to exist.
33 In summary, the professional evidence is to the effect that FC is improving but continues to lack capacity to make reasonable judgments concerning her finances (particularly the unwise use of resources and changing of her residential situation in pursuit of or in response to her delusions) and her person (particularly instability in and threatened alterations to her accommodation, travel - including interstate - in response to her delusional beliefs, nutrition and self care issues) and her health care needs (total lack of insight into her mental health needs).
34 It is to be noted that no alternative expert evidence as to capacity was presented to the Tribunal and that the views expressed by Dr Gibson appear to coincide with the opinions of others doctors involved in her care over a long period.
35 Whilst not speaking in detail about FC's capacity, PG - FC's friend - acknowledged much of what Dr Gibson said but stated that FC was an extremely intelligent, capable lady who "at the best of times, managed her affairs extremely well". She also said that if FC is "managed well under the mental health system, and sensitively, that's the most ideal situation". She was at pains to assert that, in recent years, FC has not ever been homeless as alleged by some.
36 FC did not speak specifically regarding her capacity but the Tribunal accepts that she has for many years refused to accept that she is ill. It was
(Page 10)
- quite apparent from what she said in the hearing that she was vehemently opposed to any mental health services involvement in her case. Notwithstanding this, she stated that she nominated a particular individual (K) to be her "guardian" in all areas, including financial and personal matters.
37 The Public Trustee's submission contained a number of instances demonstrating FC's flawed judgement and decision-making in relation to her affairs.
Findings
38 Having considered all of the evidence, the Tribunal makes the following findings.
39 The Tribunal accepts in total the professional evidence, written and oral, concerning FC's current level of incapacity. That evidence is consistent with the Tribunal's own conclusions having observed FC's demeanour in the hearing and having listened to her remarks at the hearing. The Tribunal accepts that she continues to suffer the effects of her illness and that her decision-making and judgment remains impaired.
40 FC unfortunately continues to be incapable of making reasonable decisions concerning all aspects of her financial and legal affairs and concerning her accommodation and mental health care needs.
41 The Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 have been satisfied and that FC is a person for whom an administration and a guardianship order could be made.
Need
42 The Tribunal is required to take into account the provisions of s 4(2)(c) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990, which provides that:
"[An] order shall not be made if the needs of the person in respect of whom an application … is made could, in the opinion of the [Tribunal], be met by other means less restrictive of the person's freedom of decision and action."
43 Pursuant to s 43(1)(c) and s 64(1)(b) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990, the Tribunal may only make an order if it is satisfied that there is a need.
(Page 11)
Evidence of need of an administrator
44 FC's affairs have been managed for many years by the Public Trustee. There has been some criticism in various quarters as to the way in which FC has been dealt with and her affairs managed.
45 At the hearing PG, FC's friend, voiced a "philosophical objection" to FC not being able to spend her money as she choses at her time of life.
46 Some suggestions were made in the hearing as to ways in which the practicalities of administration and communication between the Administrator and FC might be improved, but - other than from FC herself - there was no other submission or evidence supporting the proposition that an administration order was not needed.
47 The Tribunal is satisfied that there are many examples of occasions where FC has acted to her financial detriment or has placed herself at financial risk, in pursuit of her delusions - some even during the period of the current order.
48 FC indicated on many occasions and in many different ways her opposition to the order and her view that it was not needed.
49 PS, FC's son, acknowledged the difficulty that had been experienced in the management of his mother's affairs but indicated clearly his support for the continuance of the order.
50 Mr Sacha, speaking on behalf o the Public Advocate concerning FC's best interests, supported the continuance of the plenary administration order in favour of the Public Trustee.
Evidence of need of guardianship
51 As to accommodation, PS, FC's son, spoke about his mother's movements and various accommodations over the years, suggesting that, in part, the long period of accommodation stability prior to about 2003, had been due to the involvement of himself and his wife prior to their estrangement from FC. He confirmed that the risk of homelessness was a very real concern for the family.
52 The Public Trustee, whilst not seeking to have a guardian do the work of a case manager, suggested that a guardianship order would assist, by providing a decision-maker who was seen to have "more immediate, perhaps more regular and a different sort of contact from what the Public Trustee has, be more able to smooth the gaps between the agencies to
(Page 12)
- ensure that those problems don't come to fruition " and "a more personal involvement in the life choices of [FC] …, a more intimate involvement in those sorts of decisions and choices" and "a more intimate relationships with [FC] …, someone who has access to and the skills to coordinate between [the] various agencies". Mr Cox for the Public Trustee noted that there had, in the past, been gaps between the work done by the case workers and the proper tasks of an administrator, and that the Public Trustee's Office had been endeavouring to fill those gaps by stepping outside of its role; but that working with FC's friends and family had been a difficult and unreliable mechanism when it did so.
53 Mr Cox did however accept that "the appointment of a guardian is not to fill gaps or for the OPA to become the fall-guy for failing services … [or] a save all and the plug against any problems that we might face in the future …".
54 Dr Gibson and the mental health professionals involved in FC's care also supported the appointment of a guardian.
55 Mr Sacha, on behalf of the Public Advocate, submitted that the appointment of a guardian was not needed; that the assistance available to FC from mental health services and PG, in conjunction with the services of an administrator, represented a satisfactory way of managing decisions regarding FC's accommodation and was an appropriate, less restrictive alternative to the making of a guardianship order. He indicated that, in the circumstances, a guardian would look to the mental health team as to what was appropriate and pointed to the evidence that the mental health team saw itself quite properly as having a role in ensuring appropriate accommodation via the mechanisms of discharge planning and a CTO. As a result, he suggested, the appointment of a guardian was an unnecessary extra layer in decision-making.
56 There was much evidence given before the Tribunal as to the role of a (mental health services) case manager and as to the steps that would be taken when it comes time for FC to leave hospital and return to the community. It appears that her rental accommodation is currently still available to her and a further lease will be able to be negotiated by the administrator with the current landlord, despite previous difficulties.
57 Dr Gibson's evidence was that, as part of the mental health service's discharge planning undertaken by FC's case manager, the relevant hospital staff would assist FC with the transition back to her unit and indeed if, at that time, there are difficulties with that accommodation, they would
(Page 13)
- assist FC in finding alternative accommodation. He stated that FC's CTO would require that she reside at the address to which she is discharged.
58 As to what assistance FC might accept in the future, it is clear she is opposed to what she sees as "interference" in her affairs. PG's evidence is that FC "makes her own decisions about who she allows into her life". It is also apparent that in the past PG has successfully assisted FC in finding accommodation.
59 It also appears that, in the past, FC's nominated case manager at her community mental health clinic has assisted in finding suitable accommodation. The evidence is that this would occur again, if necessary.
60 The Tribunal considers that, in the circumstances of this particular case, it is outside the brief of an administrator to be responsible for the selection of appropriate accommodation for FC. This falls squarely within the responsibility of those in charge of her mental health care, and it seems that, at least in the present circumstances, that is also accepted by Dr Gibson.
61 Given the appointment of an administrator to make the necessary financial and legal arrangements, and the involvement of mental health services under the auspices of a CTO, the selection and securing of appropriate accommodation appears to be something that can be achieved without the involvement of a guardian. It goes without saying that FC would be involved in the selection of any alternative accommodation as, it appears, she has been in the past.
62 It does appear, however, that, at different times in the past, FC has travelled or temporarily moved from her home to other locations, often in pursuit of her delusions. To the extent that action needs to be taken regarding such relocations, it seems to the Tribunal that, given the history, this is a concern more effectively and efficiently dealt with by mental health services, if necessary under mental health legislation, rather than by a guardian. If and when such an event should occur, it is likely a guardian could do relatively little directly to control the situation. In the view of the Tribunal, this is not currently an issue, nor one directly impacting on the question of accommodation.
63 As to health matters, Dr Gibson's evidence is that FC's physical health is largely well managed by her, for example in terms of accessing a general medical practitioner. He expressed some reservations about nutrition and self care at times when FC is very unwell. It does appear
(Page 14)
- that FC does not have a "regular" general practitioner, but does move between doctors. However, no serious concern was expressed about this. The greater concern seems to be FC's mental health which has largely been managed in the recent past by mental health services in conjunction with FC's (then) general practitioner.
Findings as to need
64 Having considered all of the evidence in this matter, the Tribunal makes the following findings in relation to need.
65 The Tribunal is satisfied that FC is in need of an administrator to manage all aspects of her affairs.
66 However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that FC has need of a guardian at the present time. It appears from the evidence that there are satisfactory, less restrictive mechanisms in place at the present time that would enable all of FC's personal needs to be met.
67 The Tribunal acknowledges the assessment of a number of the health professionals involved with FC that it might be useful for someone outside of the mental health services and the Public Trustee's office to be involved in the decision making required for FC, someone whom FC might see as being "on her side". However, the Tribunal does not presently see this as necessary or likely to be of material assistance to the advancing of FC's best interests given the support structures already available to FC, and FC's very definite views concerning what she sees as "interference" by others not of her own choosing.
Wishes of the Proposed Represented Person
68 Section 4(2)(f) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 requires that the Tribunal:
"[A]s far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of the [proposed represented person] as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from the person's previous action ... "
69 FC expressed strong reluctance to accept any restrictions on her freedom of decision-making or guardianship orders. However, the Tribunal takes the view that an order for administration ought be made in FC's best interests and, as will be seen, that an administrator not of her choice be appointed.
(Page 15)
70 In relation to FC's stated desire to appoint a particular person to be her
"guardian" in all areas, it appears that the relevant individual is a person previously involved in FC's mental health care. It appears that FC may have incorporated this person into her delusional thinking and may misperceive the nature of any existing or past relationship. Dr Gibson advised that the individual concerned is no longer prepared or able to play a role in FC's life.
Office of the Public Advocate (OPA)
71 In this case, the Public Advocate had conducted an investigation as requested by the Tribunal, and advocating in FC's best interests, submitted that the Public Trustee's plenary appointment continue but that no guardianship order be made.
Suitability of Nominee
72 Before the Tribunal can appoint an administrator it must be satisfied that the appointee is a fit and proper person and that it is in the best interests of FC for that person to be appointed.
73 The Public Trustee has been FC's administrator for a number of years. There is no other candidate for the appointment.
Findings as to appointment of administrator
74 Despite the matters raised concerning the performance of the Public Trustee, comprehensive details of which were placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Public Trustee has acted appropriately in the management of FC's affairs in difficult circumstances. It is of course desirable that there be good communication and good relationships between administrators and represented persons. The Tribunal acknowledges that this is often, for many reasons, difficult to consistently achieve and that there will often be tensions between the demands of a represented person and the resources (including time and staffing options) available to an administrator, particularly a public administrator such as the Public Trustee. The management of FC's affairs has been particularly fraught at times, nonetheless the Tribunal accepts that the Public Trustee has at all times endeavoured to fulfil its responsibilities as FC's administrator with good faith and proper endeavour.
75 While there appear to have been some difficulties in the relationship between FC and the Public Trustee, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Public Trustee has at all times endeavoured to find a balance in pursuing
(Page 16)
- the interests of FC and have acted appropriately in the management of her affairs. There is nothing in the past performance of the Public Trustee that would suggest that the Public Trustee should not be reappointed as administrator.
76 Given the important role that the Public Trustee and officers of the Public Trustee's Office play in the administration of the financial affairs of some of the most vulnerable people in our community, the Tribunal would not expect any less a level of service than this. Nonetheless, a case such as this is perhaps a timely reminder of the importance of continuing education and the training of officers in the Public Trustee's Office in the discharge of those important functions. There is not an easy job, and appropriate resources must be made available to ensure their adequate performance.
77 In all the circumstances, the Tribunal takes the view that FC's interests would be best served by the reappointment of the Public Trustee as administrator.
Plenary or Limited Administration Order
78 Section 4(2)(d) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 constrains the Tribunal to appoint only a limited guardian, rather than a plenary guardian, if such an appointment would be sufficient in the view of the Tribunal to meet the needs of the person in respect of whom the application is made. The underlying philosophy of the Act is that the Tribunal act in a way that imposes the least restriction possible on the proposed represented person's freedom of decision and action.
79 In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal takes the view that the plenary order should continue.
Directions
80 The Public Trustee also sought that, in the event that the administration was confirmed, the Tribunal consider making a direction approving an expenditure budget prepared for FC, as well as the direct payment mechanisms currently in place and proposed to be put in place.
81 As indicated at the hearing, the Tribunal is of the view that such a direction is inappropriate in all the circumstances, and that these are matters for the Administrator to determine as part of the statutory obligations and discretions imposed under the order. Suffice to say that the Tribunal has reviewed the comprehensive information regarding those matters provided by the administrator and has accepted that the
(Page 17)
- administrator has in the past, and will in the future, act in FC's best interests.
Conclusion and orders
82 In relation to all applications, the Tribunal is required by s 4(2)(a) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 to consider the best interests of the proposed represented person.
83 In all the circumstances, despite FC's stated position, the Tribunal considers that the making of the following orders is in FC's best interests.
84 The Tribunal orders:
1. FC's application is dismissed.
2. The administration order appointing the Public Trustee as Administrator is confirmed and is to be reviewed by 27 September 2010.
3. The Public Trustee's application for the appointment of a guardian is dismissed.
4. The Public Trustee's application for directions is dismissed.
- I certify that this and the preceding [84] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUSTICE M L BARKER, PRESIDENT
0