JB - [2025] WASAT 42 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   JB [2025] WASAT 42
MEMBER:   JUDGE F VERNON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
MS N EAGLING, MEMBER
MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER

HEARD:   6 MAY 2025
DELIVERED          :   15 MAY 2025
FILE NO/S:   GAA 133 of 2025

JB
Represented Person
CB
Applicant

Catchwords:

Administration - Jurisdiction to make administration order for South Australian resident - Effect in Western Australia of orders of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal - Whether the represented person has capacity - Whether the represented person is in need of an administrator - Whether the applicant is a suitable person to be appointed as administrator for the represented person - Appointment of limited administrator

Legislation:

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s 118
Evidence Act 1995 (C'th), s 185
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 17A, s 17A(1), s 40, s 43, s 64, s 64(1), s 67(1), s 67(2), s 68(1)(a), s 68(1)(b), s 68(1)(c), s 68(1)(d), s 74(1), s 80, s 80(1), s 83D, s 83D(1), s 83D(1)(a), s 83D(2), s 83D(3), s 84(a), s 86, s 86(1)(a), s 86(1)(aa), s 86(1)(b), s 87(1), s 87(5), s 89(1)(b), s 89(2), s 115, s 115(2)
Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 (SA), s 35(2)(c), s 37(1), s 37(1)(b), s 37(1)(d), s 57(1)(b), s 64(b), s 64(c)
Guardianship and Administration Regulations 2005 (WA), reg 3, reg 4
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 5
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(1)

Result:

CB appointed administrator of JB's estate in Western Australia

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	In Person (By videolink)
Applicant	:	In Person (By videolink)

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	N/A

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

G v G (1986) 64 ALR 273; (1985) 10 Fam LR 718
GS v MS [2019] WASC 255
JCB [2025] WASAT 1
Re DEF and the Protected Estates Act 1983 [2005] NSWSC 534
SAL and JGL [2016] WASAT 63

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary

On 2 January 2025, a single Member of this Tribunal made orders under s 64(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act):
(a)declaring that JB was unable by reason of a mental disability to make reasonable decisions about a part of her estate and was in need of an administrator; and
(b)appointing the Public Trustee as JB's limited administrator of the funds the Public Trustee held on trust for JB and funds that were expected to be received in respect of a criminal injuries compensation claim.
CB is JB's daughter and has sought review, under s 17A(1) of the GA Act, of the Member's decision.
Whilst JB now lives in South Australia, she continues to have an estate in Western Australia, being an amount of money held on trust for JB in the Public Trustee's common account.
CB accepts that JB needs an administrator. However, CB says that she should…

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 JB

Details

AGLC: JB [2025] WASAT 42
Case: [2025] WASAT 42
Decision Date: 15 MAY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of JB, the applicant sought an administration order from the Supreme Court of Western Australia to appoint a limited administrator for the represented person, JB, who resides in South Australia. The application was based on an order made by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which found that JB lacked capacity and required an administrator. The dispute centred on the enforceability of the South Australian order in Western Australia, the capacity of JB, the necessity for an administrator, and the suitability of the applicant for the role of limited administrator.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues, including whether the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the order, the effect of that order in Western Australia, the capacity of JB, the necessity for an administrator, and the suitability of the applicant. The court also considered whether the applicant was a suitable person to be appointed as the limited administrator and whether the appointment of a limited administrator was necessary for JB's welfare.

The court concluded that the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the order, and that the order was enforceable in Western Australia. The court found that JB lacked capacity and required an administrator. The court determined that the applicant was a suitable person to be appointed as the limited administrator. The court considered the evidence presented and found that the applicant was qualified and willing to act as the limited administrator and that the appointment was necessary for JB's welfare.

The court made an order appointing the applicant as the limited administrator for JB, with specified powers to manage JB's financial affairs. The order also included provisions for the limited administrator to act in the best interests of JB and to report to the court as required. The court's decision recognised the need for coordinated action between the two states to ensure that JB received appropriate care and support.

Orders