HA - [2023] WASAT 134

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   HA [2023] WASAT 134
MEMBER:   MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
HEARD:   26 OCTOBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   31 OCTOBER 2023
PUBLISHED           :   27 DECEMBER 2023
FILE NO/S:   GAA 4004 of 2023

HA
Represented Person
MA and PA
Applicants

FILE NO/S: GAA 4037 of 2023

HA
Represented Person
MA and PA
Applicants

Catchwords:

Application for guardianship and administration orders - Best interests of represented person - Revocation of enduring power of attorney - Revocation of enduring power of guardianship - Public Trustee appointed plenary administrator - Public Advocate appointed limited guardian

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 43(1)(b)(i), s 43(1)(b)(ii), s 43(1)(b)(iii), s 43(1)(c), s 44(1)(a), s 44(1)(b), s 44(1)(c), s 44(2)(d), s 44(5), s 64, s 64(1)(b), s 65, s 68(1)(c), s 68(1)(d), s 68(3)(c)

Result:

Enduring power of attorney and enduring power of guardianship revoked
Public Trustee appointed as plenary administrator
Public Advocate appointed limited guardian

Category: B

Representation:

GAA 4004 of 2023

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	In Person
Applicants	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicants	:	N/A

GAA 4037 of 2023

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	In Person
Applicants	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicants	:	N/A

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

FY [2019] WASAT 118

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

(These are the reasons for decision delivered on 31 October 2023 and have been taken from the transcript, edited only to anonymise parties, correct grammatical errors and some infelicity of expression, to add relevant authorities and headings, without variation to the substance thereof).

Introduction

HA is a 73-year-old woman who lives with her de facto partner of 30 years, YG, in their home in Perth (Perth Property). HA and YG sold their business in August 2022, and since then, they have entered into a new partnership agreement to be partners in a business. They have recently sold numerous properties that they owned jointly or in their sole names, and have spent the majority of their combined funds of around $1.8 million on two properties.
The first is the (First Rural Property), which is around 120 acres of land, which was purchased for around $800,000 in August 2022 in YG's sole name. The parties own another property, the (Third Rural Property), which was purchased in 2017. This property is adjacent to the First Rural Property, and together they form around 150 acres of farmland, where YG and HA hold around 150 cattle.
The second property is the (Second Rural Property), which is owned in joint names and is located around five minutes from the First Rural Property, and around five kilometres from rural town (Rural Town). The purchase of the Second Rural Property was subject to the sale of the parties' Perth Property.
HA has had some health issues, specifically around her memory, since…

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 HA

Details

AGLC: HA [2023] WASAT 134
Case: [2023] WASAT 134
Decision Date: 27 DECEMBER 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved an application for guardianship and administration orders concerning an individual who had previously executed an enduring power of attorney and an enduring power of guardianship. These powers had been revoked, and the Court was required to determine whether it was in the best interests of the represented person for the Public Trustee to be appointed as a plenary administrator and the Public Advocate as a limited guardian. The dispute arose in the context of the represented person's capacity to manage their own affairs due to health issues.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the best interests of the represented person for the Public Trustee to be appointed as a plenary administrator and the Public Advocate as a limited guardian. This involved a consideration of the represented person's health condition, their ability to manage their affairs, and the potential benefits and detriments of the proposed appointments. The Court also needed to assess the validity and implications of the revocation of the enduring powers of attorney and guardianship.

The Court found that the represented person was unable to manage their own affairs due to their health condition, and that it was in their best interests for the Public Trustee to be appointed as a plenary administrator and the Public Advocate as a limited guardian. The Court considered the represented person's health status, the potential for recovery, and the necessity of the proposed appointments to ensure the proper management of the represented person's affairs. The Court determined that the revocation of the enduring powers of attorney and guardianship was valid and that the proposed appointments were necessary to safeguard the represented person's interests.

The Court made orders appointing the Public Trustee as the plenary administrator and the Public Advocate as the limited guardian of the represented person, effective immediately. The Court also confirmed the validity of the revocation of the enduring powers of attorney and guardianship. This decision provided clarity and certainty for the management of the represented person's affairs, ensuring that their interests were protected in accordance with the law.

Orders