JA - [2018] WASAT 68 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   JA [2018] WASAT 68
MEMBER:   MS F CHILD (MEMBER)
HEARD:   26 JUNE 2018
DELIVERED          :   26 JULY 2018
FILE NO/S:   GAA 1341 of 2018
BETWEEN:   JA
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Administration - Capacity - Intellectual disability - Neuro-psychological assessment - Lack of appreciation of the value of money - Background of conflict between parents - Need for formal appointment of administrator to provide oversight and accountability for management of estate - Informal oversight not in the best interests of the represented person - Sister appointed administrator consistent with wishes of the represented person

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 68, s 80, s 80(1), s 85(1)(e), s 104(1a), s 107, s 109(3)

Result:

Administrator appointed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person

In Person

Solicitors:

Represented Person

N/A

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Background

These are the reasons for the decision on the application by Dr JS filed 17 April 2018 seeking the appointment of an administrator of the estate of JA (the represented person).
The Tribunal referred the application received for investigation by the Office of the Public Advocate by order dated 11 May 2018.
The represented person is 29 years old and has an identified intellectual disability. He is in receipt of a Disability Support Pension (DSP) and works for a supported employment provider. He has some services funded by the Department of Communities (Disability Services).
The represented person's parents have been separated for many years. The represented person has been living with his father since 2011 with a brief return to his mother in 2014. Prior to that he lived independently (with some supports) for approximately one year in a property owned by his mother and stepfather and prior to that he lived with his mother and stepfather in their home.
The applicant is a clinical neuropsychologist employed in the North Metropolitan Health Service. In his application the applicant reports that he conducted a neuropsychological assessment of the represented person, the findings of which suggest that the represented person lacks capacity to give an enduring power of attorney (EPA) and an enduring power of guardianship (EPG) and to make decisions about his person and his finances.
All published decisions of the Tribunal made under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (the GA Act) must not identify the represented person or witnesses and remove any other information which might identify the represented person.
The application was heard on 26 June 2018, the applicant and a representative of the Public Advocate attended the hearing together with the represented person, his father, mother, stepfather and sister.
An administration order appointing the sister of the represented person as the plenary administrator of his estate was announced at the conclusion of the hearing however there was insufficient time for the delivery of the reasons of the Tribunal for…

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 [2018] WASAT 68
Case: [2018] WASAT 68
Decision Date: 26 JULY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of JA, the dispute arose between the parties regarding the need for a formal appointment of an administrator to manage the estate of a person with intellectual disability. The court was tasked with determining whether the represented person lacked the capacity to manage their own financial affairs due to their intellectual disability and inability to appreciate the value of money. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the represented person’s sister sought formal appointment as their administrator. The represented person’s parents had a contentious relationship, and the court was concerned about the lack of oversight and accountability in managing the estate without a formal appointment.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the represented person had the capacity to manage their own financial affairs. The court considered evidence from neuro-psychological assessments which indicated that the represented person lacked the appreciation of the value of money, which was a significant factor in determining their capacity. The court also had to weigh the background of conflict between the parents and the need for formal oversight to ensure the represented person’s best interests were protected. The court needed to decide whether appointing the sister as administrator would be consistent with the represented person’s wishes and in their best interests.

The court found that the represented person lacked the capacity to manage their own financial affairs due to their intellectual disability and inability to appreciate the value of money. The court acknowledged the background of conflict between the parents and recognised the need for formal oversight to provide accountability and ensure the represented person’s best interests were protected. The court concluded that appointing the sister as administrator would be consistent with the represented person’s wishes and in their best interests. The court emphasised the importance of a formal appointment to provide the necessary oversight and accountability for the management of the estate.

The court ordered that the represented person’s sister be appointed as their administrator. The court also directed that appropriate measures be taken to ensure that the sister’s appointment would provide the necessary oversight and accountability for the management of the estate. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the represented person’s best interests and ensuring that their financial affairs were managed appropriately.

Orders