K - [2025] WASAT 67 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   K [2025] WASAT 67
MEMBER:   DR E MARILLIER, SENIOR MEMBER
HEARD:   19 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED          :   10 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   GAA 2358 of 2025
K
Represented Person

C
Applicant

Catchwords:

Whether leave should be granted for review of guardianship and administration orders - Whether change in circumstances - Whether any other reason decision no longer in represented person's interests

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 17A, s 19(a), s 85(2), s 86, s 87

Result:

Leave refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	In Person
Applicant	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	N/A

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

RK [2022] WASAT 112

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

This is a decision on whether to grant or refuse leave for review of the guardianship and administration orders made by the Full Tribunal on 19 March 2025 (March decision). Those orders continued the appointment of the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA or Public Advocate) as guardian for K and appointed the Office of the Public Trustee (Public Trustee) as plenary administrator. The functions of the limited guardian were expanded so they now include accommodation, medical treatment, services, contact, travel and to act as next friend in any legal proceedings except those relating to K's estate. This order is to be reviewed by 19 March 2026.
If leave is granted, this will be the fourth matter to go to a full hearing in relation to K within 12 months.
The application is pursuant to s 87 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act). It is made by K's brother C, who lives in Sydney. C brought a previous application pursuant to s 87 (where leave was granted for a review under s 86) in May 2024. This led to the revocation of the previous appointment of K's mother, D, as her guardian and administrator, which had been in place since 2015.
The Public Advocate was initially appointed as both the plenary administrator and the limited guardian in July 2024, because the learned Member had concerns regarding the historic oversight of D's performance as administrator by the Public Trustee.
The Public Advocate sought review of her appointment as plenary administrator, and the learned Member revoked and substituted the administration order in August 2024. The new order appointed the Public Trustee as limited administrator with all the powers of a plenary administrator apart from those vested in the Public Advocate. The Public Advocate was appointed as the limited administrator to seek legal advice on behalf of K in relation to any claim she may have against the Public Trustee.
In November 2024, D sought review of the orders revoking her appointment. At Directions, it was clear that D was aggrieved by the original decision. Although her application was out of time, the Tribunal extended the time for her to…

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 K

Details

AGLC: K [2025] WASAT 67
Case: [2025] WASAT 67
Decision Date: 10 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerns an application for leave to review guardianship and administration orders made by the Full Tribunal on 19 March 2025. The orders continued the appointment of the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) as guardian for K and appointed the Office of the Public Trustee as plenary administrator. The application is brought by K’s brother, C, who resides in Sydney. C seeks leave for review on the basis that the Public Advocate has been guilty of neglect and misconduct and is unfit to continue. The application is pursuant to section 87 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act).

The court was required to determine whether the application was a review of the Full Tribunal's decision in March 2025 or whether there had been a change in circumstances or another reason a review should be held pursuant to section 87 of the GA Act. This involved examining whether the application was an appeal of the Full Tribunal’s decision or if it fell within the scope of a review under section 87. The court also needed to consider whether there had been a change in circumstances or any other reason why a review should be granted.

The court held that the application was a review under section 87 and not an appeal. It was found that there was no change in circumstances since the March 2025 decision. Furthermore, the court determined that there was no other reason why a review should be held. The application was dismissed, and leave for review was refused.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that leave for review be refused. This was the fourth matter to go to a full hearing in relation to K within 12 months. The orders made by the Full Tribunal on 19 March 2025 were to continue.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

This is a decision on whether to grant or refuse leave for review of the guardianship and administration orders made by the Full Tribunal on 19 March 2025 (March decision). Those orders continued the appointment of the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA or Public Advocate) as guardian for K and appointed the Office of the Public Trustee (Public Trustee) as plenary administrator. The functions of the limited guardian were expanded so they now include accommodation, medical treatment, services, contact, travel and to act as next friend in any legal proceedings except those relating to K's estate. This order is to be reviewed by 19 March 2026. If leave is granted, this will be the fourth matter to go to a full hearing in relation to K within 12 months. The application is pursuant to s 87 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act). It is made by K's brother C, who lives in Sydney. C brought a previous application pursuant to s 87 (where leave was granted for a review under s 86) in May 2024. This led to the revocation of the previous appointment of K's mother, D, as her guardian and administrator, which had been in place since 2015. The Public Advocate was initially appointed as both the plenary administrator and the limited guardian in July 2024, because the learned Member had concerns regarding the historic oversight of D's performance as administrator by the Public Trustee. The Public Advocate sought review of her appointment as plenary administrator, and the learned Member revoked and substituted the administration order in August 2024. The new order appointed the Public Trustee as limited administrator with all the powers of a plenary administrator apart from those vested in the Public Advocate. The Public Advocate was appointed as the limited administrator to seek legal advice on behalf of K in relation to any claim she may have against the Public Trustee. In November 2024, D sought review of the orders revoking her appointment. At Directions, it was clear that D was aggrieved by the original decision. Although her application was out of time, the Tribunal extended the time for her to file the application for review under s 17A of the GA Act, and the matter was heard and determined in March 2025. C, the applicant in the current matter, was legally represented until just prior to the March hearing. He had proposed himself as guardian and administrator and filed character references in support of his suitability. Two days before the hearing, C withdrew his candidacy, without giving a reason. He attended the hearing remotely, having dispensed with legal representation the day before. C filed the current application under s 85(2) of the GA Act in early May 2025, claiming that the Public Advocate had been guilty of neglect and misconduct and is unfit to continue. The matter was listed for Directions to consider whether in fact C was seeking review of the Full Panel decision in March 2025 (where appeal would lie with the Supreme Court),[1] or whether there was a change in circumstances or another reason a review should be held pursuant to s 87. [1] GA Act s 19(a).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.