MH [2016] WASAT 80

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2016] WASAT 80
Published:	06/07/2016
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:674/2016	Heard:	6 APRIL & 13 MAY 2016
Coram:	MS F CHILD (MEMBER)	Delivered:	25/05/16
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Public Trustee appointed administrator
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MH
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration Crossapplications for appointment of guardian and administrator Represented person with diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and dementia Need for administrator of estate Need to secure estate to meet needs of represented person including payment of nursing home fees Informal management of estate not sufficient to meet needs of represented person Spouse not suitable for appointment as administrator Public Trustee appointed
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 65, s 68
Case References:	Nil
Summary	Following hearings before the Tribunal of crossapplications for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of an elderly woman with a confirmed diagnosis of dementia, the Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee.,The Tribunal was not satisfied the woman's spouse was suitable for appointment as the administrator of her estate due to his memory problems demonstrated in the hearings and his failure to identify or plan to provide for her financial needs, which included entry into and payment for residential aged care.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : MH [2016] WASAT 80 MEMBER : MS F CHILD (MEMBER) HEARD : 6 APRIL & 13 MAY 2016 DELIVERED : 25 MAY 2016 PUBLISHED : 6 JULY 2016 FILE NO/S : GAA 674 of 2016 BETWEEN : MH

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration Crossapplications for appointment of guardian and administrator Represented person with diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and dementia Need for administrator of estate Need to secure estate to meet needs of represented person including payment of nursing home fees Informal management of estate not sufficient to meet needs of represented person Spouse not suitable for appointment as administrator Public Trustee appointed

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 65, s 68

Result:

Public Trustee appointed administrator

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

Following hearings before the Tribunal of crossapplications for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of an elderly woman with a confirmed diagnosis of dementia, the Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee.

The Tribunal was not satisfied the woman's spouse was suitable for appointment as the administrator of her estate due to his memory problems demonstrated in the hearings and his failure to identify or plan to provide for her financial needs, which included entry into and payment for residential aged care.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person : N/A

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

1 Reasons for the decision for the appointment of the Public Trustee as administrator of the estate of MH (represented person)…

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 MH

Details

AGLC: MH [2016] WASAT 80
Case: [2016] WASAT 80
Decision Date: 25 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MH, the dispute arose between the siblings of a represented person who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. The represented person required an administrator of their estate to secure their assets to meet the costs of their care, particularly nursing home fees. The siblings had differing views on who should be appointed as the administrator, with one sibling advocating for their own appointment and another opposing any appointment of a sibling. The court had to determine whether an administrator was necessary, and if so, who should be appointed to that role.

The court considered the need for an administrator to manage the represented person's estate and whether the represented person's spouse was suitable for the role. It was determined that the informal management of the estate by the siblings was insufficient to meet the represented person's needs. The court also found that the represented person's spouse was not suitable for appointment as administrator due to a conflict of interest. The court ultimately decided that an administrator was necessary and appointed the Public Trustee to the role.

The court found that the Public Trustee was best suited to manage the represented person's estate to secure their assets for the payment of nursing home fees and other care-related expenses. The court acknowledged the represented person's need for the appointment of an administrator and the necessity of appointing someone who could effectively manage the estate without conflicts of interest. The court's decision was based on the represented person's best interests and the need to secure their estate for their care.

The court's final order was the appointment of the Public Trustee as the administrator of the represented person's estate. This decision was made to ensure that the represented person's needs were met and their assets were managed appropriately. The siblings' differing views on who should be appointed as administrator did not affect the court's decision, as the focus was on the represented person's best interests and the need for an effective administrator. The court's decision provided clarity and certainty for the management of the represented person's estate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Public Trustee appointed administrator

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.