GA and EA and GS

Case [2013] WASAT 175
GA and EA and GS [2013] WASAT 175
Last Update:  08/11/2013
GA and EA and GS [2013] WASAT 175
Jurisdiction: STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL   Citation No: [2013] WASAT 175
  Published: 04/11/2013
Act: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No: GAA:1049/2013   Heard: 26 JUNE 2013 AND 12 SEPTEMBER 2013
Coram: JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT), MS J STANTON (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER), MS V O'TOOLE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)   Delivered: 12/09/2013
No of Pages: 15   Judgment Part: 1 of 1
Result: Application for review dismissed
Applicant and her brother and sister in law ordered to pay donees' costs and disbursements of $4,114
Category: B
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]
Parties: GA
EA and GS
Catchwords: Guardianship and administration Review by Full Tribunal under s 17A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) ­ Enduring power of attorney Supervisory jurisdiction Application for records and accounts kept by donees Application for audit of records and accounts s 109(1)(a) and (b) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) Allegations largely outside scope of proceedings No reason requiring an inquiry into the operation of the enduring power of attorney Costs Unreasonable conduct
Legislation: Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 17A, s 107(1)(a), s 107(1)(b), s 109(1)(a), s 109(1)(b)
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87(1), s 87(2)
Case References: DB and MJB [2013] WASAT 73
EW [2010] WASAT 91
KS [2008] WASAT 29
Summary: The represented person passed away at age 92, leaving behind 14 children. The represented person had appointed two of her children as her enduring attorneys (donees). There was an ongoing dispute within the family regarding the transfer by the represented person of a fishing business and a property to one of the donees and certain of his siblings.
The applicant applied to the Tribunal under s 17A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) for review by a Full Tribunal of a single member's decision in which the member dismissed the applicant's application for orders under s 109(1)(a) and (b) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) requiring the donees to file and serve records and accounts kept by them of dealings and transactions in relation to the power and requiring such records and transactions to be audited.
The applicant's submissions were largely out of the scope of the legislation. The applicant maintained these submissions even though the Tribunal conducted a directions hearing in which it explained its limited role under s 109(1)(a) and (b) and observed that much of the dispute between factions within the family could not be addressed in the proceeding.
The Tribunal found that there was nothing disclosed in the evidence requiring an inquiry into the operation of the enduring power of attorney and, in particular, no sufficient basis for an order for the filing and service or auditing of records and accounts kept by the donees.
The Tribunal found that the applicant and her brother and sister in law who assisted her…

Continue reading GA and EA and GS

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
GA and EA and GS [2013] WASAT 175
Case
[2013] WASAT 175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of GA and EA and GS, the applicants sought a review of decisions made by the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal of Western Australia in relation to an enduring power of attorney. The applicants, represented by GA, sought to challenge the donees of the power of attorney and requested an audit of the records and accounts kept by them. The matter was heard and dismissed by the Full Tribunal, with the applicants ordered to pay the costs of the donees. The dispute involved the applicants questioning the management and financial dealings of the donees concerning the affairs of the donor of the power of attorney. The applicants sought to review the decisions of the Tribunal on the basis of alleged mismanagement and misconduct by the donees. The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants had standing to seek a review, the scope of the Tribunal's supervisory jurisdiction, and whether the applicants' allegations were within the scope of the proceedings. The court also had to consider whether there were any reasons that would require an inquiry into the operation of the enduring power of attorney. In dismissing the application for review, the court found that the applicants did not have standing to seek a review of the decisions of the Tribunal. The court also held that the allegations made by the applicants were largely outside the scope of the proceedings, and there was no reason that would require an inquiry into the operation of the enduring power of attorney. The court further held that the applicants' conduct in bringing the review application was unreasonable, and accordingly, ordered them to pay the costs and disbursements of the donees amounting to $4,114. The Full Tribunal dismissed the application for review and ordered the applicants and their representatives to pay the costs and disbursements of the donees.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for review dismissed

Applicant and her brother and sister in law ordered to pay donees' costs and disbursements of $4,114

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.