MC - [2024] WASAT 119

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   MC [2024] WASAT 119
MEMBER:   MS K COBBETT, MEMBER
HEARD:   14 AND 22 OCTOBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   22 OCTOBER 2024
PUBLISHED           :   1 NOVEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   GAA 4762 of 2024

MC
Represented Person
HOSPITAL A
Applicant
B
Interested Party

Catchwords:

Guardianship - Administration - Capacity - Best interests - Need for a Guardian - Suitability - Ability to make objective and reasonable judgments - Lack of insight into impact of diagnosis and degree of incapacity - Compatibility with guardian - Public Advocate appointed limited guardian - Public Trustee appointed plenary administrator

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s 44, s 44(1), s 44(1)(c), s 44(2), s 44(5), s 51, s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 68, s 68(3)(a), s 84(a)

Result:

Office of the Public Advocate appointed limited guardian
Public Trustee appointed plenary administrator

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	Non-appearance
Applicant	:	In Person
Interested Party	:	Mr R Graham

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	N/A
Interested Party	:	Graham & Associates

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

ED [2020] WASAT 34
FS [2007] WASAT 202
GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10
MH [2022] WASAT 74
MM [2016] WASAT 62
QW [2007] WASAT 23
RH [2009] WASAT 159
The Public Trustee (WA) v Brumar Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 161
TL v Office of the Public Advocate [2020] WASC 455

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

(The application was heard on 14 October and 22 October 2024. An oral decision was delivered on 22 October 2024. The following reasons comprise the reasons that were delivered orally, subject only to minor editing to improve clarity of expression and setting out.)

Introduction

These are my reasons for decision in matter GAA 4762 of 2024 an application by Hospital A for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for MC under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act).
MC is a former court typist in her late seventies who has recently suffered a stroke. She has three children and a supportive ex-husband.
MC lives with dementia and has multiple physical conditions which have meant that she has spent a significant portion of the past 2 years in respite care and hospital.
This application was brought by Hospital A on her last admission (September 2024) to help with discharge planning, due to an inability to arrange safe discharge planning for her. It is clear that there has been a breakdown of communication between Hospital A and MC's daughter, B.

Evidence

I have read the Tribunal's file relating to the application which includes:
(1)Application by Hospital A dated 13 September 2024 with accompanying letters from consultant physician and social worker.
(2)Multiple medical reports, service provider reports, medical files, letters from health care providers, discharge summaries and ambulance notes. I have identified those documents which I have relied on…

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 MC

Details

AGLC: MC [2024] WASAT 119
Case: [2024] WASAT 119
Decision Date: 1 NOVEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were MC, who was the subject of the dispute, and the Public Advocate, who was appointed as a limited guardian. The nature of the dispute involved the administration of MC's affairs due to his lack of capacity. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether a guardian should be appointed for MC and, if so, the nature of that guardianship.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether MC lacked the capacity to manage his affairs, whether a guardian was necessary in his best interests, and who should be appointed as the guardian. The court also needed to consider the compatibility between MC and the proposed guardian. Furthermore, the court had to decide on the extent of the powers and responsibilities of the appointed guardian or administrator, specifically whether a limited or plenary guardianship was appropriate.

The court found that MC did indeed lack the capacity to manage his affairs effectively. The decision to appoint a guardian was deemed necessary in his best interests. The Public Advocate was deemed suitable due to their ability to make objective and reasonable judgments, despite MC's lack of insight into the impact of his diagnosis and the degree of his incapacity. The court concluded that the Public Advocate was compatible with MC and therefore appointed them as a limited guardian. In contrast, the Public Trustee was appointed as a plenary administrator to manage MC's financial affairs. The court believed this dual approach would best serve MC's interests, providing both personal and financial oversight.

Orders