JTH - [2025] WASAT 68

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   JTH [2025] WASAT 68
MEMBER:   MS F CHILD, MEMBER
HEARD:   9 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED          :   8 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   GAA 6071 of 2024

JTH
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Review of guardianship and administration orders - Represented person with diagnoses of Schizophrenia - Post traumatic stress disorder - Mild intellectual disability and past head injuries - Whether the represented person remains a person for whom guardianship and administration orders may be made - Wishes of the represented person not to have a guardian and administrator - Whether in need of orders - Mother proposes self for appointment as guardian - Suitability for appointment as guardian - Ability to perform the functions of a guardian - Mother not suitable for appointment as guardian - Public Advocate and Public Trustee reappointed

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(5), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 40, s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s 44, s 64(1), s 68

Result:

Public Advocate reappointed limited guardian
Public Trustee reappointed plenary administrator

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person

In Person

Solicitors:

Represented Person

N/A

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

FY [2019] WASAT 118
GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10
SAL and JGL [2016] WASAT 63

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

These are the reasons of the Tribunal on applications made under the Guardianship and Administration Act1990 (WA) (GA Act) in respect of JTH.
The JTH is a 21 year old man who has a complex mental health history with a number of diagnoses, the most recent being schizophrenia diagnosed in August 2024. He has previous diagnoses of mild intellectual impairment, ADHD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and possible acquired brain injury due to repeated head injuries.
Guardianship and administration orders were first made for JTH in 2023 following an application by the treating team of a hospital where he had been admitted as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA). His admission followed him being brought in by police and ambulance after an assault by him on his mother and younger brother.
Since that time JTH has had further lengthy admissions to hospitals. Since his most recent discharge from Graylands Hospital in late 2024 he has lived in supported independent living accommodation (SIL).

Review of Orders

The original orders made in February 2023 appointed the Public Advocate as JTH's limited guardian. The Public Trustee was appointed as the plenary administrator of his estate and orders made due for review on 16 February 2025. The guardianship order was reviewed earlier on the application of the Public Advocate on 21 August 2024 and amended to include additional functions. The guardianship order now under review dated 21 August 2024 is as follows:
…
The Public Advocate … is appointed the limited guardian:
(a)to decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;
(b)to decide with…

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 JTH

Details

AGLC: JTH [2025] WASAT 68
Case: [2025] WASAT 68
Decision Date: 8 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application to review guardianship and administration orders concerning an individual with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, mild intellectual disability, and past head injuries. The application was made by the Public Advocate and Public Trustee, who were the original guardians and administrators. The individual in question expressed a wish not to have a guardian and administrator, but the court was required to determine whether they were still in need of such orders. The mother of the individual proposed herself for the roles of guardian and administrator. The court had to assess whether the mother was suitable for these roles and whether she had the ability to perform the functions required.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the individual remained a person for whom guardianship and administration orders could be made, given their expressed wish not to have a guardian and administrator. Additionally, the court needed to determine the suitability of the mother for the roles of guardian and administrator. The individual's expressed wishes and their current mental state and intellectual capacity were central to these determinations. The court examined evidence from medical professionals, the individual's expressed wishes, and the proposed guardian's capability to perform the required duties. Ultimately, the court concluded that the individual still required a guardian and administrator and that the mother was not suitable for these roles. The Public Advocate and Public Trustee were reappointed to these positions.

The court found that despite the individual's expressed wishes, their condition still necessitated the oversight and decision-making support provided by a guardian and administrator. The individual's mental health conditions and intellectual disability meant that they were unable to make informed decisions about their welfare, healthcare, and finances. The mother's proposal for self-appointment was rejected due to concerns about her suitability, which included her own mental health issues and the potential for conflict of interest. The court determined that the Public Advocate and Public Trustee were the most appropriate individuals to continue in these roles, ensuring that the individual's best interests were protected. The final orders of the court reappointed the Public Advocate as the guardian and the Public Trustee as the administrator, ensuring that the individual continues to receive the necessary support and protection.

Orders