LA and JCA - [2012] WASAT 249

LA and JCA [2012] WASAT 249

Last Update: 15/04/2013

LA and JCA [2012] WASAT 249
Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2012] WASAT 249
Published:	20/11/2012
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:2851/2012	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
Coram:	MS F CHILD (MEMBER)	Delivered:	28/09/2012
No of Pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Contribution to costs orders
Category:	B
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	LA CJ JCA
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration Applications for appointment of guardian and administrator Application for legal costs of parties to be paid out of estate of represented person Factors to be considered in determining costs application Whether rule that parties bear their own costs should be set aside Represented person ordered to pay a contribution to parties' legal costs
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 16(1), s 16(4), s 72(3) State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 78, s 87
Case References:	A and ES [2005] WASAT 279 J & P Metals Pty Ltd and Shire of Dardanup [2006] WASAT 282 J & P Metals Pty Ltd and Shire of Dardenup [2006] WASAT 282 (S) LC and JS [2007] WASAT 127 Pearce & Anor and Germain [2007] WASAT 291 Re JCA; Ex Parte RD [2012] WASAT 123 Re ML; Ex Parte WW [2009] WASAT 5
Summary:	The nieces of the represented person applied for the payment of their legal costs relative to the proceedings before the Tribunal to be paid from her estate. Proceedings under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) in relation to their aunt were initiated by applications made by a hospital social worker seeking the appointment of a guardian and an administrator. The applications before the Tribunal were made against a background of family conflict and allegations of financial abuse of the represented person. The final orders made by the Tribunal appointed the choices of the represented person as her administrator and guardian and these orders were not opposed by the nieces. The nieces participated in the hearing by telephone as they lived in another State. A fuller picture of the family conflict was provided to the Tribunal by their participation. Although initially opposed to the appointments made, they withdrew their opposition to the choices made by the represented person of the guardian and administrator finally appointed. In this sense, the Tribunal determined they had acted in the best interests of the represented person, which is required for the costs order sought. The Tribunal determined that, although, generally, parties to proceedings before the Tribunal should expect to pay their own costs, a contribution to the niece's legal costs for representation at the hearing could be ordered to be paid from the estate of the represented person.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : LA and JCA…

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 LA and JCA

Details

AGLC: LA and JCA [2012] WASAT 249
Case: [2012] WASAT 249
Decision Date: 20 NOVEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

LA and JCA were the parties in a legal dispute concerning the appointment of a guardian and administrator for an individual. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The applicant sought a contribution towards the legal costs of both parties from the estate of the represented person. This was opposed by the respondent, who argued that the costs should be borne by the parties themselves.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the general rule that parties bear their own costs should be set aside in this instance, and if so, what factors should be considered when deciding whether to make such an order. The court was also required to assess whether the applicant's conduct warranted a departure from the usual costs order, and if so, to what extent.

In its decision, the court held that the general rule that parties bear their own costs could be set aside in appropriate circumstances. It considered various factors, including the conduct of the parties, the nature of the application, and the outcome of the proceedings. The court found that the applicant's conduct had been reasonable and justified a departure from the usual costs order. As a result, the court ordered the represented person to contribute towards the legal costs of both parties.

The court made an order for the represented person to pay a contribution towards the legal costs of both parties, as outlined in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Contribution to costs orders

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.