Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) v Fish and Another

This matter concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania concerning the interpretation of the *Guardianship and Administration Act 1995* (Tas). The appellant, Fitzgerald, acting as the child representative for A, sought to challenge decisions made by the respondents, Fish and Another, in their capacity as administrators of A's estate. The core of the dispute revolved around the respondents' authority to make certain decisions regarding A's property and financial affairs.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the respondents, as administrators appointed under the *Guardianship and Administration Act 1995*, possessed the power to sell or otherwise dispose of A's real property. This question necessitated an examination of the scope of the administrators' powers as defined by the Act and any relevant common law principles governing the administration of estates. The Court was required to determine the extent to which the Act conferred authority for such significant transactions, particularly when the subject of the administration was a child.

The Full Court reasoned that the *Guardianship and Administration Act 1995* grants administrators broad powers to manage the financial affairs of a person under guardianship. However, the Court clarified that the disposal of real property is a power that requires specific authorisation, either explicitly within the Act or through a court order. In this instance, the Court found that the administrators' general powers did not extend to the sale of real estate without further judicial sanction. The Court emphasised the importance of protecting the assets of protected persons and ensuring that significant decisions like property disposal are subject to appropriate oversight.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the respondents to sell A's real property. The Court ordered that the respondents were not authorised to sell the property and that any future disposition of A's real estate would require an application to the Court for specific leave.