H
[2016] WASAT 33
•4 APRIL 2016
H [2016] WASAT 33
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2016] WASAT 33 | |
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:347/2016 | DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS | |
| Coram: | JUSTICE J C CURTHOYS (PRESIDENT) | 4/04/16 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed under s 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | H |
Catchwords: | Abuse of process Multiple applications No new facts Lacking in substance |
Legislation: | Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 86(1) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 47, s 47(1)(a) |
Case References: | Nil |
Summary | The applicant, H, has a long standing, severe, psychiatric condition. An administrator was appointed for H in 2006. H has made multiple, unsuccessful applications for review of the appointment of an administrator.,On 25 January 2016, the Tribunal received a further application from H under s 86(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), for a review of the decision appointing his son, NS, as administrator.,The Tribunal determined that H's application had not raised any matters which would provide a basis for a review of the Tribunal's order made on 3 June 2015. H's application was therefore determined as lacking in substance and was dismissed pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : H [2016] WASAT 33 MEMBER : JUSTICE J C CURTHOYS (PRESIDENT) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 4 APRIL 2016 FILE NO/S : GAA 347 of 2016 BETWEEN : H
- Applicant
Catchwords:
Abuse of process - Multiple applications - No new facts - Lacking in substance
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 86(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 47, s 47(1)(a)
Result:
Application dismissed under s 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
The applicant, H, has a long standing, severe, psychiatric condition. An administrator was appointed for H in 2006. H has made multiple, unsuccessful applications for review of the appointment of an administrator.
On 25 January 2016, the Tribunal received a further application from H under s 86(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), for a review of the decision appointing his son, NS, as administrator.
The Tribunal determined that H's application had not raised any matters which would provide a basis for a review of the Tribunal's order made on 3 June 2015. H's application was therefore determined as lacking in substance and was dismissed pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : N/A
Solicitors:
Applicant : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Introduction
1 On 25 January 2016, the Tribunal received an application from H under s 86(1) of the Guardian and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) for a review of the decision appointing his son, NS, as administrator.
2 H has made multiple applications seeking a review of the appointment of an administrator by the Tribunal without raising any new facts.
H's history of applications to the Tribunal
3 On 26 October 2006, an application was made by a mental health social worker at the Bentley Health Service, 'E' Block, Mill Street, Bentley, Western Australia, for the appointment of an administrator for H (GAA 1727 of 2006).
4 A report prepared by the Public Advocate stated that due to H's schizoaffective disorder, concerns were held about his ability to manage his financial affairs. H had a severe and enduring mental illness and had been unable to work for the past 14 years. He had been in receipt of a disability support pension since 1996. He lacked insight into his illness and was disorganised in thought to the extent that he was incapable of managing his financial affairs.
5 On 23 November 2006, the Public Trustee was appointed plenary administrator of H's estate. An order was made that the appointment would be reviewed by 23 November 2011.
6 An application under s 86(1) of GA Act was filed by H on 3 March 2011 (GAA 686 of 2006). H's application and correspondence is difficult to understand.
7 A Primary Carer and Social Worker Guide was prepared by a social worker at Bentley Hospital recorded a diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia dated back to about 1987. H had frequent admissions to hospital. He was often homeless and neglected his selfcare. He had previously had a Homeswest flat but preferred an itinerant lifestyle secondary to delusional beliefs that this prevented the government spying on him. He refused to engage in appropriate discharge planning, accommodation, support or treatment.
8 On 27 April 2011, the order appointing the Public Trustee as plenary administrator of H was confirmed and an order made for a review to take place by 27 April 2016.
9 On 6 June 2012, H wrote to the Tribunal effectively seeking a review on the basis of, as he stated it, 'Constitutional action against the corrupted criminals who have acted on illegitimate surgery and poisoning my immediate worship family and I'.
10 On 6 September 2012, H filed an application under s 86(1) of the GA Act. It is extremely difficult to understand H's statements in the application (GAA 3269 of 2012).
11 A discharge summary from Graylands Hopsital dated 22 December 2011 indicated that:
[H] is well known to Bentley Psychiatric Services as well as Graylands Hospital, Royal Perth Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. His illness is treatment resistant and he frequently develops quite severe side effects while treated with antipsychotic medications. In the past, he was tried on various depot medications as well as Clozapine, Amisolproate, Olanzapine, Quetiapine, Lopromazine, Risperidone and Zuclopenthixol but unfortunately, all of them were causing severe side effects in one form or another.
12 The mental state examination described H as:
[A] middle aged man who was rather angry uncooperative. He described his mood as good and his affect was angry and hostile. He described his long standing delusional beliefs that he has been persecuted by the governments of Iran, India and Australia, who he claims, have been keeping him away from his family. He regards himself as a political prisoner. He denied any self harm ideation or intent. He was fully orientated. His judgment was very poor and he had no insight at all.
13 The report went on to note that 'over the last 15 years, numerous health professionals have made an effort both to control H's mental illness and to ensure he has a roof over his head. This has proved very difficult as he still remains homeless, insightless and chronically psychotic'. The report was prepared by Dr S, a consultant psychiatrist, and Dr Z, a senior medical officer at Graylands Hospital. A Doctor's Guide dated 20 September 2012, and prepared by Dr S, stated that H's prognosis was: 'Further deterioration in function and capacity likely over time'.
14 On 21 November 2012, Senior Member Allen made an order confirming the Public Trustee as plenary administrator and issued an order for review by 21 November 2017.
15 On 19 April 2013, H filed another application under s 86(1) of the GA Act (GAA 1512 of 2013). The application appears to be largely irrational. He refers, for example, to the 'latest forged arrest' on 24 January 2013.
16 A further report on H was prepared by Dr S who noted that his prognosis was poor, his condition was treatment resistant and compliance with treatment outside hospital was poor.
17 A report from the Trust Manager of the Public Trustee dated 31 May 2013 noted:
Frequent contact with the client up until admission into the forensic locked ward at Bentley. [H] used [to] have episodes of contact where he called up to 510 times per day or loiter outside the Public Trustee's offices or harass reception staff.
Due to his mental illness, very rarely do phone calls prove productive and most calls are terminated without warning mid-sentence by [H].
18 On 10 June 2013, the order dated 21 November 2012 was confirmed with an order that it be reviewed by 10 June 2018.
19 On 6 September 2013, H lodged another application for review under s 86(1) of the GA Act (GAA 3346 of 2013). A letter to the Tribunal from the Trust Manager dated 14 October 2013 noted that:
The crux of [H's] application dated 4 September 2013 is no different to his last application nor have his circumstances changed in any way. I therefore submit a copy of my last report provided to the Tribunal in regards to the hearing that took place just 4 months ago with an uptodate statement. New or altered information will be denoted by an asterisk.
20 On 29 October 2013, the Tribunal confirmed the appointment of the Public Trustee and ordered that it be reviewed by 27 October 2018.
21 On 15 April 2015, NS, H's son applied for appointment as administrator for his father in place of the Public Trustee (GAA 1567 of 2015).
22 On 3 June 2015, the Tribunal revoked the administration relating to the Public Trustee and appointed NS as plenary administrator with an order that the order is to be reviewed by 3 June 2020.
23 On 25 January 2016, the Tribunal received an application from H under s 86(1) of the GA Act for a review of the decision appointing his son, NS, as administrator.
Section 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)
24 Section 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) provides that:
(1) This section applies if the Tribunal believes that a proceeding
(a) is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or
(b) is being used for an improper purpose; or
(c) is otherwise an abuse of process.
(2) If this section applies, the Tribunal may order that the proceeding be dismissed or struck out and make any appropriate orders.
…
The substance of the present application
25 H has a severe psychiatric condition. He has made multiple, unsuccessful applications for review of the appointment of an administrator. He has not raised any matters in this application that would provide a basis for a review of the order of 3 June 2015.
Conclusion
26 In the circumstances, H's application is lacking in substance and is dismissed pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the SAT Act.
Order
1. The application is dismissed as lacking in substance under s 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
I certify that this and the preceding [26] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUSTICE J C CURTHOYS, PRESIDENT
0
0
2