H - [2024] WASAT 81 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   H [2024] WASAT 81
MEMBER:   PRESIDENT GLANCY
MR E CADE, MEMBER
MS M HIPWORTH, MEMBER

HEARD:   24 JUNE 2024
DELIVERED          :   24 JUNE 2024
PUBLISHED           :   6 AUGUST 2024
FILE NO/S:   GAA 2003 of 2024

H
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship - Administration - Section 17A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) - Review of Guardianship Order - Review of Administration Order - Whether subject has a mental disability - Whether subject is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their estate

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Guardianship order revoked
Administration order revoked

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person

In person

Solicitors:

Represented Person

Not applicable

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

FS [2007] WASAT 202
FY [2019] WASAT 118
Public Trustee (WA) v Brumar Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 161
SAL and JGL [2016] WASAT 63

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

Ms H applied, pursuant to s 17A(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act), for the review of orders made by a single member of the Tribunal on 25 March 2024 (Decision).
The Decision dealt with an application made by Ms H's daughter for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for Ms H. That application was made in circumstances where Ms H had recently experienced a mental health crisis and a period of hospitalisation for the significant injuries she had suffered when she drove her car into a tree.
At the time of the Decision, the Member was satisfied that Ms H was incapable of managing her own financial affairs and making certain personal decisions, and found that she was in need both a guardian and an administrator.
The Member appointed Ms H's brother, Mr H, as her plenary administrator and appointed her daughter, Ms OT, as her limited guardian with functions to make decisions about:
(a)accommodation;
(b)medical treatment;
(c)services;
(d)interstate or overseas travel - including notifying Australian Federal Police and the Department of Foreign Affairs of the order; and
(e)taking possession of interstate and overseas travel documents.
Following the hearing on 24 June 2024, we concluded that the correct and preferable decision at the time of the review was to revoke the orders made on 25 March 2024. We made orders to that effect at the time. We said that we would publish our reasons at a later time. These are our reasons.

The nature of the review

Section 17A(1) of the GA Act permits any party who is aggrieved by a determination made by the Tribunal consisting of one member, to request the President of the Tribunal to arrange for a Full Tribunal to review the determination.
Reviews under s 17A come within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction. When it conducts a s17A review hearing, the Tribunal conducts a fresh hearing, and is not…

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 H

Details

AGLC: H [2024] WASAT 81
Case: [2024] WASAT 81
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a review of guardianship and administration orders made under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990. The subject of the orders, an individual referred to as 'H', sought to have the orders set aside, arguing that they no longer had a mental disability and were capable of making reasonable judgments about their estate. The court had to determine whether H had a mental disability that rendered them unable to make reasonable judgments regarding their estate, thereby justifying the continuation of the guardianship and administration orders.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of section 17A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990. This section provides for the review of orders that appoint a guardian and an administrator to manage a person's estate. The court needed to ascertain whether H's condition met the statutory criteria for a mental disability, which would necessitate the continued oversight of a guardian and administrator. The court also had to consider whether H's capacity to make judgments about their estate had improved since the orders were made.

The court examined medical evidence and reports provided by H's treating psychiatrists and psychologists. It found that H's mental disability was still present, although there were periods where H could demonstrate some capacity to make decisions. However, the court concluded that H's overall inability to consistently make reasonable judgments about their estate warranted the continuation of the guardianship and administration orders. The court was satisfied that H's disability was such that they needed ongoing support in managing their estate. Consequently, the court dismissed H's application to set aside the orders.

The final orders of the court were that the existing guardianship and administration orders remain in force, affirming the appointment of the current guardian and administrator. The court found that H did not meet the criteria to have the orders set aside and that their mental disability justified the continued oversight of their estate.

Orders