GM [2018] WASAT 18
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2018] WASAT 18 | |
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:1275/2017 | DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS | |
| Coram: | MS F CHILD (MEMBER) | 9/03/18 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Costs order made | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GM |
Catchwords: | Guardianship and Administration Application under Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) for the filing of accounts by attorneys appointed under an enduring power of attorney Donor deceased Application by the attorneys for their costs under s 87 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) Conduct of applicant unreasonable in the circumstances Application made for ulterior purpose Costs order made |
Legislation: | Administration Act 1903 (WA) Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 16, s 16(5), s 109 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 60, s 87, s 87(1), s 87(2) |
Case References: | BFO & ORS and KPW [2014] WASAT 68 EW [2010] WASAT 91 GA and EA and GS [2013] WASAT 175 J & P Metals Pty Ltd and Shire of Dardanup [2006] WASAT 282 (S); (2006) 45 SR (WA) 242 JB and KH [2014] WASAT 152 KS [2008] WASAT 29 KS No (2) [2008] WASAT 167 MB and MM [2017] WASAT 51 Medical Board of Western Australia and Kyi [2009] WASAT 22 PHQ and LPQ [2015] WASAT 5 VT [2015] WASAT 147 Winterbourn and Western Australian Planning Commission [2013] WASAT 72 |
Orders | |
Summary | The applicant commenced proceedings in the Tribunal on 4 May 2017 pursuant to s 109(1)(a) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) for an order requiring attorneys appointed under an enduring power of attorney (EPA) to file financial records of the donor kept by them as attorneys. The donor of the EPA had died in 2016.,The applicant withdrew his application four days prior to the final hearing. ,Orders had been made by the Tribunal for the filing of affidavits and written submissions by the parties and much if not most of the legal work had been completed at the time of the withdrawal of the application.,The attorneys submitted that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, that it was made for an ulterior purpose and that the applicant acted unreasonably in maintaining the application and then withdrawing it only four days prior to the final hearing. In these circumstances they argued that a costs order should be made against the applicant pursuant to s 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).,Costs were awarded. The Tribunal found that the allegation made by the applicant of possible misappropriation of funds of the donor by the attorneys justified the attorneys seeking legal representation but that the evidence provided by the applicant in the form of his affidavits filed in the course of the proceeding did not support or refer to that allegation. ,The Tribunal found that the applicant had unreasonably refused an offer made by the attorneys to inspect financial records of the donor prior to commencing proceedings when… |
Continue reading GM
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- GM [2018] WASAT 18
- Case
- [2018] WASAT 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of GM, the Supreme Court of Western Australia dealt with an application under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990, brought by attorneys appointed under an enduring power of attorney. The attorneys sought the filing of accounts for the donor who had passed away. After the filing of accounts, the attorneys applied for their costs under section 87 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004. The court had to determine if the application for costs was reasonable and whether it was made for an ulterior purpose.
The legal issues before the court were whether the application for costs by the attorneys was reasonable and whether it was made for an ulterior purpose. The court found that the application for costs was unreasonable in the circumstances and was made for an ulterior purpose, as the attorneys had failed to act in the best interests of the donor. The court concluded that the application was not made in good faith and was, in fact, driven by the attorneys' own interests.
The court's reasoning focused on the conduct of the attorneys in bringing the application for costs. It was found that the application was unreasonable and ulterior, as it did not align with the best interests of the donor. The court considered the circumstances surrounding the application and determined that the attorneys had acted unreasonably. Consequently, the court made a costs order against the attorneys.
The court's final orders were to make a costs order against the attorneys for their unreasonable and ulterior application for costs. This decision underscores the importance of acting in the best interests of the donor and highlights the consequences of making applications for costs that are unreasonable or ulterior.
The legal issues before the court were whether the application for costs by the attorneys was reasonable and whether it was made for an ulterior purpose. The court found that the application for costs was unreasonable in the circumstances and was made for an ulterior purpose, as the attorneys had failed to act in the best interests of the donor. The court concluded that the application was not made in good faith and was, in fact, driven by the attorneys' own interests.
The court's reasoning focused on the conduct of the attorneys in bringing the application for costs. It was found that the application was unreasonable and ulterior, as it did not align with the best interests of the donor. The court considered the circumstances surrounding the application and determined that the attorneys had acted unreasonably. Consequently, the court made a costs order against the attorneys.
The court's final orders were to make a costs order against the attorneys for their unreasonable and ulterior application for costs. This decision underscores the importance of acting in the best interests of the donor and highlights the consequences of making applications for costs that are unreasonable or ulterior.
Orders
Orders of the court
Costs order made
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.