JA - [2025] WASAT 115

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   JA [2025] WASAT 115
MEMBER:   MS F CHILD, MEMBER
HEARD:   26 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED          :   21 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   GAA 2144 of 2025

JA
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Periodic review of administration and guardianship orders - Represented person with intellectual disability - Need for administrator and guardian - Refusal of father/carer of the represented person to restore funds withdrawn from represented person's bank account to the estate - Loss of interest income to the estate - Father proposing self as administrator - Father not suitable for appointment - Former bankrupt - Failure to cooperate with the appointed administrator to restore funds to a secure interest earning account - Use of represented person's funds to contribute to the purchase of a vehicle used primarily for the father's business - Other potential conflicts of interest - Need for an independent administrator - Allegation by represented person that he had been hit by father - Denial by father of the incident - Need for independent oversight of accommodation and services decisions - Public Advocate reappointed as limited guardian - Public Trustee reappointed as plenary administrator

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(5), s 4(6), s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s 44(5), s 64, s 68(3), s 84, s 84(b), s 85(1)(e), s 107(1)(d), s 110ZD, s 110ZD(4)(c)
Public Trustee Act 1941 (WA), s 51

Result:

Public Trustee appointed as the administrator of the estate
Public Advocate appointed as limited guardian

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person

In Person

Solicitors:

Represented Person

N/A

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

FY [2019] WASAT 118
JA [2018] WASAT 68
JA [2020] WASAT 73
SAL and JGL [2016] WASAT 63

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

These are the reasons for the decision made on review of orders pursuant to s 84 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (the GA Act) which appoint the Public Trustee as plenary administrator of JA's estate and the Public Advocate as JA's limited guardian.
The hearing of the reviews was conducted on 26 August 2025. JA, his mother D, father B and stepfather T, together with the delegated guardian of the Public Advocate (guardian) all attended the hearing in person. The decisions on the reviews were reserved and these are the reasons for the decisions made.

Background and history of orders

JA is a 34-year-old man who lives with an intellectual disability. Guardianship and administration orders were first made for JA in 2018. Prior to that time his financial and personal decisions were managed informally with support from his family.
An administration order was first made for JA on 26 June 2018 when his sister, S, was appointed the plenary administrator of his estate. That order followed an application by a clinical neuropsychologist (the original applicant) because of conflict which had arisen between JA's parents about the management of…

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 JA

Details

AGLC: JA [2025] WASAT 115
Case: [2025] WASAT 115
Decision Date: 21 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of JA, the Court was required to make decisions about the ongoing administration of a represented person's estate, which included guardianship and administration orders. The represented person, who has an intellectual disability, is currently under the care of their father. The father has been acting as the administrator of the represented person's estate but has refused to restore funds withdrawn from the estate to a secure interest-earning account. This has resulted in a loss of interest income for the estate.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the father was suitable to continue as the administrator, given his history as a former bankrupt and his failure to cooperate with the appointed administrator. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the father had used the represented person's funds to contribute to the purchase of a vehicle used primarily for his business, which could indicate a potential conflict of interest. Furthermore, the court had to determine if there was a need for an independent administrator to ensure the proper management of the represented person's estate and if there was a need for independent oversight of accommodation and services decisions.

The court found that the father was not suitable to continue as the administrator of the represented person's estate due to his history as a former bankrupt and his failure to cooperate with the appointed administrator. The court also found that the father had used the represented person's funds to contribute to the purchase of a vehicle used primarily for his business, which indicated a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, the court reappointed the Public Advocate as the limited guardian and the Public Trustee as the plenary administrator of the represented person's estate. The court also ordered that the father must restore the withdrawn funds to a secure interest-earning account and that there must be independent oversight of accommodation and services decisions.

The final orders of the court included the reappointment of the Public Advocate as the limited guardian and the Public Trustee as the plenary administrator of the represented person's estate. The court also ordered that the father must restore the withdrawn funds to a secure interest-earning account and that there must be independent oversight of accommodation and services decisions. The court found that the represented person's best interests would be served by the reappointment of the Public Advocate and the Public Trustee, as they would provide the necessary oversight and management of the represented person's estate.

Orders