GG - [2020] WASAT 54 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   GG [2020] WASAT 54
MEMBER:   MS F CHILD, MEMBER
HEARD:   12, 13 MARCH AND 1 APRIL 2020
DELIVERED          :   18 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   GAA 4599 of 2019

GG
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Represented person with autism and intellectual disability and challenging behaviours - Application for guardianship and administration order - Need for orders - Conflict between mother and service providers about financial and other matters - Removal from supported accommodation - No services in place - Need for services - Potential risk to health and safety of challenging behaviours - Need for administrator - Need for certainty about management of finances - No less restrictive means - Parents in conflict - Parents not suitable for appointment

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 17A, s 43(1)(b), s 44(5), s 64(1)

Result:

Public Trustee appointed administrator
Public Advocate appointed limited guardian

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Interested Party	:	Mr R Graham

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Interested Party	:	Voght Graham

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

These are the reasons of the Tribunal for the decisions made on 1 April 2020 to appoint the Public Advocate as limited guardian of GG and the Public Trustee as plenary administrator of his estate.
In all decisions of the Tribunal made under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (the GA Act), all identifying information is removed to protect the privacy of the represented person.

Background

GG is 26 year old man with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability.
Guardianship and administration orders were first made for GG in 2013 on the application of his father, BG. The Public Advocate and the Public Trustee were appointed as guardian and administrator of GG's estate.
Those orders were revoked on review pursuant to s 17A of the GA Act brought by Ms T (GG's mother) in 2015.

The application

The current application seeking orders for guardianship and administration for GG was made on 20 December 2019 by BJ and FT (the applicants), representatives of a disability service accommodation provider where GG had been living for 18 months up until December 2019.
The application proposed the appointment of the Public Advocate and the Public Trustee.
As part of case management orders dated 7 January 2020 which were sent to the parties, the applications were referred to the Public Advocate for investigation which included a request to investigate the need for the orders proposed and to ascertain the views and wishes of GG.
The hearing of the applications occurred over 3 days on 12 March, 13 March (first hearings) and 1 April 2020 (final hearing).
Ms T and the investigator for the Public Advocate (investigator) attended the first hearing. Ms T said that she considered it was not in GG's best interests to attend the hearing as he was traumatised.
Ms T confirmed…

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 GG

Details

AGLC: GG [2020] WASAT 54
Case: [2020] WASAT 54
Decision Date: 18 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved an application for a guardianship and administration order in relation to a person, referred to as GG, who has autism and an intellectual disability, along with challenging behaviours. The application was brought by one of GG's parents, who sought to address the conflict between GG's mother and service providers regarding financial and other matters. The dispute also involved GG's removal from supported accommodation and the lack of services in place, which led to potential risks to GG's health and safety due to the challenging behaviours. The court was tasked with determining whether the application should be granted and if so, who should be appointed as the administrator.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included whether GG required a guardianship and administration order, whether the order was necessary to address the conflict between GG's mother and service providers, and if there were any less restrictive means available to achieve the desired outcome. Additionally, the court had to consider whether GG's parents were suitable for appointment as the administrator due to the ongoing conflict between them.

In determining the application, the court found that GG did require a guardianship and administration order to address the issues at hand. The court acknowledged the conflict between GG's mother and service providers, the removal from supported accommodation, and the lack of services in place, which presented potential risks to GG's health and safety. The court also noted that GG's challenging behaviours necessitated the need for an administrator and certainty about the management of GG's finances. Furthermore, the court found that there were no less restrictive means available to achieve the desired outcome and that GG's parents were not suitable for appointment as the administrator due to their ongoing conflict.

Ultimately, the court granted the application and appointed an independent administrator to oversee GG's affairs. The court's decision provided GG with the necessary support and protection to manage their health, safety, and financial matters, while also addressing the conflict between GG's mother and service providers.

Orders