JF - [2024] WASAT 5 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   JF [2024] WASAT 5
MEMBER:   MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
HEARD:   6 OCTOBER 2023 AND 27 NOVEMBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   29 JANUARY 2024
PUBLISHED           :   30 JANUARY 2024
FILE NO/S:   GAA 3434 of 2023

JF
Applicant
BF
Proposed Represented Person
EF
Third Party

Catchwords:

Application for guardianship and administration - Loan made by proposed represented person - Intellectual disability - Psychiatric illness - Proceedings in Family Court of Western Australia - Independent investigation - Best interests of represented person - Appointment of two limited administrators - Guardianship order not in best interests of proposed represented person

Legislation:

Family Court Rules 2021 (WA), Pt 13
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 121
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 43(1)(b), s 44(1), s 51, s 64, s 68(1), s 68(1)(c), s 68(1)(d), s 68(3), s 68(3)(c)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2), s 62(1)(c), s 62(3)

Result:

Private limited administrator and Public Trustee appointed limited administrator
Guardianship application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Proposed Represented Person	:	In Person
Third Party	:	Barrister B

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Proposed Represented Person	:	N/A
Third Party	:	Solicitor B

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

FY [2019] WASAT 118

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

JF filed an application to the Tribunal seeking the appointment of a guardian and an administrator for his 29-year-old son BF, who has a genetic disorder which causes an intellectual disability and severe anxiety (Syndrome). In addition, BF developed a psychiatric illness in 2020 and has received diagnoses of schizophrenia, adjustment disorder, delusional disorder and obsessional thoughts.
JF's reason for seeking the administration order is that BF lent $200,000 (Loan) to his mother, EF, in December 2020 so that she could purchase her home (Property). BF's name is not on the title of the Property. JF became aware of the Loan as it was mentioned in documents that EF filed in the Family Court of Western Australia (Family Court) in February 2022. JF's view is that BF does not have the capacity to enter into the Loan, so JF has asked the Tribunal to appoint an administrator for BF.
JF's reason for seeking the guardianship order is because JF feels that his relationship with BF has deteriorated since the separation between JF and EF in 2019. JF also alleges that EF has deliberately structured BF's schedule so that JF is unable to spend time with him. JF has sought that a guardian be appointed to ensure that he can spend time with BF.
JF and EF are parties to financial proceedings in the Family Court so I have anonymised all identifying information in order to maintain the confidentiality of the Family Court proceedings.[1] For the same reason, I will also make an order pursuant to s 62(1)(c) and s 62(3)…

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 JF

Details

AGLC: JF [2024] WASAT 5
Case: [2024] WASAT 5
Decision Date: 30 JANUARY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the proceedings were JF, the proposed represented person, and her mother and father, who were the applicants. The applicants sought a guardianship and administration order for JF, who had an intellectual disability and a psychiatric illness. The nature of the dispute was whether it was in JF's best interests to be appointed as a represented person and whether the loan made by JF to her father should be considered in the proceedings. The case was heard in the Family Court of Western Australia. The legal issues the court had to decide included whether JF had the capacity to manage her financial affairs, and whether the loan made by JF to her father should be taken into account when determining her best interests. The court had to balance JF's right to autonomy with the need to protect her from financial exploitation.

The court considered an independent investigation into JF's financial affairs and her capacity to manage them. It also examined the loan made by JF to her father and whether it should be considered in the proceedings. The court held that JF had the capacity to manage her financial affairs and that the loan should not be taken into account when determining her best interests. The court found that appointing two limited administrators to manage JF's financial affairs was in her best interests, as it would provide her with the necessary support and protection without infringing on her autonomy. The court did not make a guardianship order as it was not in JF's best interests to be appointed as a represented person.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle of least restrictive intervention and the need to protect JF's autonomy while ensuring her safety and well-being. The court recognised JF's right to make decisions about her financial affairs and did not want to deprive her of that right unless it was necessary. The court also considered the evidence of JF's capacity to manage her financial affairs and found that she had the necessary skills and understanding. The court appointed two limited administrators to manage JF's financial affairs, which provided her with the necessary support and protection without infringing on her autonomy. The court did not make a guardianship order as it was not in JF's best interests to be appointed as a represented person.

Orders