LFG and PUBLIC TRUSTEE [2015] WASAT 71

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2015] WASAT 71
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:1825/2015	Heard:	12 JUNE 2015
Coram:	JUSTICE J C CURTHOYS (PRESIDENT)	Delivered:	23/06/15
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LFG KEF PUBLIC TRUSTEE
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration Inspection of documents Legislative intent of Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) Public policy underpinning inspection regime Cogent reasons needed to inspect documents
Legislation:	Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 80, s 112, s 113 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 35, s 35(1)
Case References:	De Hass v Murcia and Associates (unreported, Supreme Court, Western Australia, Library No 980633, 14 July 1998) KWD [2011] WASAT 4 MB [2004] WAGAB 25 Re MM (2001) 28 SR (WA) 320
Summary	The applicants, who are the proposed administrators of an estate of a former represented person (deceased), sought orders from the Tribunal to permit inspection of documents that had been filed with the Public Trustee by the joint plenary administrators of the represented person.,The orders sought are, in essence to aid the proposed administrators of the estate of the deceased person to administer the estate and will accrue for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased person.,The power to inspect under s 112(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), ceases once the represented person dies. Therefore, if there is any jurisdiction to allow inspection of documents held by the Tribunal after the death of a represented person, it can only arise under s 112(4) of the GA Act.,The corollary of the wide discretion of the Tribunal to allow inspection under s 112(4) of the GA Act is that a request for access will need to be justified by very cogent reasons.,No public policy reasons were identified as to why orders should be made under s 112(4) of the GA Act. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : LFG and PUBLIC TRUSTEE [2015] WASAT 71 MEMBER : JUSTICE J C CURTHOYS (PRESIDENT) HEARD : 12 JUNE 2015 DELIVERED : 23 JUNE 2015 FILE NO/S : GAA 1825 of 2015 BETWEEN : LFG

First Applicant

KEF

Second Applicant

AND

PUBLIC TRUSTEE

Respondent

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Inspection of documents - Legislative intent of Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) - Public policy underpinning inspection regime - Cogent reasons needed to inspect documents

Legislation:

Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA)

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 80, s 112, s 113
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 35, s 35(1)

Result:

Application dismissed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

The applicants, who are the proposed administrators of an estate of a former represented person (deceased), sought orders from the Tribunal to permit inspection of documents that had been filed 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 LFG and PUBLIC TRUSTEE

Details

AGLC: LFG and PUBLIC TRUSTEE [2015] WASAT 71
Case: [2015] WASAT 71
Decision Date: 23 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Supreme Court of Western Australia involved the LFG, a statutory body, and the Public Trustee. The dispute centred around the LFG's application for an inspection of documents held by the Public Trustee. The LFG sought this inspection under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), specifically to scrutinise documents relating to the administration of a deceased estate. The Public Trustee opposed the application, arguing that there were insufficient grounds to justify the inspection of these documents.

The court was required to determine whether the LFG had provided adequate justification to warrant an inspection of the documents under the Act. The primary issue was whether the LFG had demonstrated cogent reasons for the inspection, as required by the statutory provisions and the public policy considerations underpinning the inspection regime. The court had to balance the LFG's right to inspect documents against the privacy rights of the individuals involved and the administrative burden on the Public Trustee.

The court concluded that the LFG had not demonstrated cogent reasons for the inspection of the documents. The reasons provided by the LFG were not sufficiently compelling to justify the invasion of privacy and the administrative burden that an inspection would entail. The court emphasised the need for clear and substantial justification in such cases, in line with the legislative intent and public policy considerations. Given the lack of cogent reasons, the application for inspection was dismissed. The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.