FG and WHR [2009] WASAT 102

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2009] WASAT 102
Published:	22/05/2009
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:2217/2008	Heard:	18 NOVEMBER 2008 AND 29 JANUARY 2009
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER)	Delivered:	22/05/09
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Remuneration is paid to the administrators
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	FG BG WHR
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration Remuneration for administrators Size or complexity of the estate Remuneration may be warranted in circumstances where the estate is out of the ordinary or not typical
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 68(3), s 76, s 76(2) s 84, s 117, s 117(3)(a), s 118(1) Public Trustee Act 1941 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (WA), s 416 - s 466
Case References:	In the Will of Sheppard [1972] 2 NSWLR 714 Moore (decd), In re v Moore [1956] VLR 132
Orders	The joint adminsitrators of the estate of WHR be paid remuneration from his estate in the sume of $3 000 per annum to commence for the year 11 December 2007 to 12 December 2008
Summary	The joint administrators of the estate of WHR [his sister and brother in law] applied to the Tribunal that they be paid remuneration from his estate for their work as his administrators.,The administrators sought remuneration from the beginning of 2004 (when the sister was sole administrator; the joint administration only coming into force in October 2006), but it was not made clear why it should start for that date and not sooner (or later).,The administrators provided details of the hours spent on the administration from 2004 but their submissions were not entirely consistent. They said they were currently spending an average of seven hours a week on the administration of WHR's estate.,The administrators did not submit that if remuneration were to be paid, at what rate it should be paid. The Tribunal sought assistance from the Public Trustee to give an estimate of the fees he would charge the estate were he the administrator for WHR.,Under the relevant legislation (the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)), remuneration could only be paid to an administrator, other than the Public Trustee, if the Tribunal considered that, because of the size and complexity of the estate, or both, remuneration should be paid. ,The Tribunal decided that remuneration should be paid to the administrators of the estate of WHR but only from 2007.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : FG and WHR [2009] WASAT 102 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER) HEARD : 18 NOVEMBER 2008 AND 29 JANUARY 2009 DELIVERED : 22 MAY 2009 FILE NO/S : GAA 2217 of 2008 BETWEEN : FG

Self-represented

AND

WHR

Proposed represented person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Remuneration for administrators - Size or complexity of the estate - Remuneration may be warranted in circumstances where the…

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 FG and WHR

Details

AGLC: FG and WHR [2009] WASAT 102
Case: [2009] WASAT 102
Decision Date: 22 MAY 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of FG and WHR was heard in a relevant Australian court, involving a dispute regarding the remuneration for the administrators of the estate of WHR. The administrators, FG, sought to be paid a higher remuneration than was initially considered appropriate by the court, arguing that the size and complexity of the estate warranted such payment. The court was required to determine whether the administrators were entitled to increased remuneration and, if so, the appropriate amount.

The legal issues before the court included whether the estate was of an unusual size or complexity that justified higher remuneration for the administrators, and if so, the appropriate amount of such remuneration. The court had to consider the principles of equity and fairness in determining the remuneration for the administrators, taking into account the nature and extent of the work involved in administering the estate.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the size and complexity of the estate, the nature of the work performed by the administrators, and the general principles of fairness and equity in the administration of estates. The court found that the estate was of a size and complexity that warranted the payment of remuneration to the administrators, and that the amount of $3,000 per annum was appropriate. The court made an order that the joint administrators of the estate of WHR be paid remuneration in the sum of $3,000 per annum, to commence for the year 11 December 2007 to 12 December 2008.

Orders

Orders of the court

The joint adminsitrators of the estate of WHR be paid remuneration from his estate in the sume of $3 000 per annum to commence for the year 11*December*2007 to 12*December*2008

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.