MJ
[2024] WASAT 46
•10 MAY 2024
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION: MJ [2024] WASAT 46
MEMBER: MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
HEARD: 29 APRIL 2024
DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2024
PUBLISHED : 10 MAY 2024
FILE NO/S: GAA 299 of 2024
MJ
Represented Person
LJ
First Applicant
DJ
Second Applicant
Catchwords:
Guardianship - Administration - Meaning of 'mental disability' - Undiagnosed or unknown mental disability - Impairment in represented person's cognitive function necessary for complex decision-making - Delusional beliefs about employment prospects - Lack of insight undermining the ability to make reasonable judgments - Existence of mental disability beyond doubt - Short guardianship and administration orders - Six months
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 40, s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s 44(1)(a), s 44(1)(b), s 44(1)(c), s 64, s 65, s 68(1), s 68(3)(c), s 84, s 97, s 110ZD
Result:
Private administrator appointed
Private guardian appointed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Represented Person | : | In Person |
| First Applicant | : | Mr R Graham |
| Second Applicant | : | Mr R Graham |
Solicitors:
| Represented Person | : | N/A |
| First Applicant | : | Graham & Associates Lawyers |
| Second Applicant | : | Graham & Associates Lawyers |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
FY [2019] WASAT 118
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
(The application was heard on 29 April 2024 (Hearing). An oral decision was delivered on 30 April 2024. The following reasons comprise the reasons that were delivered orally, subject to only minor editing to improve clarity of expression and insert references and headings).
Introduction
MJ is aged in her late 30s and is currently staying with her parents, DJ and CJ, in Western Australia. She has worked as a finance professional interstate and overseas. In November 2021, she moved back to Australia to resettle back into Australian life after COVID‑19. She told me that she wanted to spend time with family and friends, particularly in Western Australia, after not being able to visit during COVID‑19.
After she arrived, she worked in the eastern states for three months, where it was mutually agreed that she would leave that employment, which MJ told me was not a good fit. MJ has not worked since around mid 2022. She explained that it has taken some time to put a team together that is able to do the type of work that she was doing overseas. MJ told me in the Hearing that she is passionate about ensuring the well‑being of her clients and giving them sound and logical advice on financial matters.
MJ lived with her brother LJ in the eastern states for a few weeks before moving back to Perth to live with her parents from late 2022. MJ made various trips to different Australian cities for industry discussions and to look for employment in 2022 and 2023. MJ described to me the significant void in her life and the emotional trauma that was caused by not being able to work in her profession, which has affected who she is. She also told me about the financial strain that has put her assets at risk.
Financial problems in Australia and overseas
MJ has bought and sold numerous properties in Australia and overseas. In mid‑2023, MJ's former home overseas was foreclosed. MJ told me that because she was not working, she was not able to keep up with the mortgage repayments.
The same concern exists now in relation to an apartment that MJ owns interstate (Apartment), which has a mortgage to the [Bank] of around $2 million (Mortgage). The Apartment was rented for 2 years, with the rent being paid in advance. It appears that the rent was not used by MJ to pay the Mortgage, so the Mortgage is in default and currently increasing by around $10,000 per month in interest.
Mr Graham, solicitor for LJ and DJ, explained that the Mortgage is now with the litigation team at the Bank awaiting the outcome of the Tribunal's decision, so it appears that the Bank will shortly take action in relation to enforcing the Mortgage. MJ has also received notices from the council about unpaid landlord bills for the Apartment.
Concerns about MJ's health
By October 2023, MJ's family had become extremely worried about her. They say that she was hearing voices and shouting out to unseen persons during the day and night. MJ does not agree with how some of her behaviours have been characterised. MJ acknowledges that she is currently unwell and her view is that she needs three months to recover. She wants advice from her doctors so she can understand the path forward in order to return to work.
In terms of her health, MJ was displaying various symptoms in January and February 2023 which led to multiple General Practitioner (GP) visits and psychologist sessions with clinical psychologist, Ms F, in early 2023. The symptoms included reduced cognitive ability, apparent psychosis or hallucinations, speaking to unseen entities, impulsivity, especially around spending, and denial of her situation and symptoms. Again, MJ does not agree with all of this.
Ms F stated that MJ was suffering from anxiety and depression in the process of adjusting to the move back to Australia. Ms F said that MJ was experiencing low self‑esteem with a loss of confidence in her abilities.
Application to the Tribunal – January 2024
This application was made to the Tribunal on 18 January 2024 by MJ's brother, LJ, and father, DJ. The application proposed that LJ and DJ be appointed joint administrators and joint guardians. The main concern, apart from MJ's health and wellbeing, was the threat of foreclosure on the Apartment. The Tribunal referred the matter to the Office of the Public Advocate for investigation.[1]
[1] GA Act, s 97.
On 25 January 2024, the Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee as MJ's emergency administrator[2] due to the imminent foreclosure of the Apartment by the Bank, who issued a final notice in early January 2024.
[2] GA Act, s 65.
MJ's travel in February 2024
On 19 February 2024, MJ contacted her trust manager (TM) at the Public Trustee seeking $4,000 from her offset account (Offset Account) (attached to the Mortgage) for a trip to the eastern states to attend job interviews. MJ sought funds to be able stay for 14 days.
On 20 February, MJ arrived in the east. On 21 February, MJ again called her TM to advise that she was in the eastern states seeking employment. As she was going to be traveling between different cities for interviews, MJ told TM that she wanted to access the Offset Account to cover her expenses while interstate. MJ also told me in the Hearing, in the context of discussing how an administration order may work, that she wanted to continue to have access to the Offset Account in the event that she wanted to purchase items to set up a home interstate.
MJ's interstate hospitalisation - March-April 2024
On 12 March 2024, MJ agreed to see a psychiatrist after a mental health team assessed her and formed the view that she required an urgent psychiatric assessment. During the assessment at the interstate Hospital, the psychiatrist determined that MJ was acutely unwell and ordered that she be admitted to the Hospital's secure psychiatric ward under the relevant mental health legislation in that State.
A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scan performed at the Hospital showed unexpected volume loss in the frontal and parietal lobes of her brain. A neurological workup was undertaken to look for other potential medical causes of her presentation, including a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, lumbar puncture, and blood tests for autoimmune issues and encephalitis.
MJ was hospitalised from 12 March until 11 April 2024 when she was discharged to her parents' home in Western Australia with plans for close follow-up with a community mental health team. She has been prescribed a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication to be taken monthly for a minimum of six months. MJ has referrals to see neurologist Dr O in Western Australia and a GP for follow-up of the MRI findings and neurological tests.
Evidence
I have read and had regard to the following documents:
(a)letters from solicitor, Mr Graham, dated 11 January, 22 January, 18 March and 23 April 2024 and chronology, dramatis personae and bundle of documents;
(b)witness statement of LJ filed 22 January 2024;
(c)letter and medical report prepared by clinical psychologist, Ms F, dated 25 January 2024 providing a diagnosis of adjustment disorder, anxiety and depression;
(d)reports from the Public Trustee dated 22 February and 11 March 2024;
(e)report from the senior investigator advocate from the Office of the Public Advocate (Investigator) dated 15 March 2024 and emails between the Investigator and MJ sent in March 2024;
(f)service provider report prepared by the social worker from the Hospital (Service Provider Report);
(g)discharge summary from the Hospital; and
(h)email from MJ to DJ and LJ dated 22 April 2024 with attachments.
I summarised the medical evidence and reports during the Hearing. I have also had regard to the oral evidence given by MJ, LJ, CJ and DJ, and the submissions from Mr Graham, the Investigator, and a solicitor from the Public Trustee. I took all evidence into account when making this decision.
Principles to be observed and legislation
To appoint an administrator, I must be satisfied that MJ is currently unable, by reason of mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of her estate and that she is in need of an administrator of her estate.[3]
[3] GA Act, s 64.
The term 'mental disability' is defined in s 3 of the Guardianship and Administration Act1990 (WA) (GA Act). The definition describes certain disabilities such as an intellectual disability, a psychiatric condition, dementia and acquired brain injury. The definition also includes the ordinary meaning of the term 'mental disability' which 'contemplates that a person's mind is affected by an impairment, incapacity or inability to function in a manner, or within a range, considered normal'.[4]
[4] FY [2019] WASAT 118 (FY) at [27].
To appoint a guardian for MJ, I must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria apply to her:
(a)she is incapable of looking after her own health and safety;
(b)she is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person; or
(c)she is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety or for the protection of others.[5]
[5] GA Act, s 43(1)(b).
I also need to be satisfied that there is a need for a guardian.[6]
[6] GA Act, s 43(1)(c)
The primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of the proposed represented person.[7] Every person is presumed to be capable of looking after their own health and safety, making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their person, managing their own affairs and making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their estate until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.[8]
[7] GA Act, s 4(2).
[8] GA Act, s 4(3).
When considering any matter, the Tribunal is required, as far as possible, to ask about the views and wishes of the person concerned.[9]
[9] GA Act, s 4(7).
Orders should not be made if MJ's needs could, in the opinion of the Tribunal, be met by other means less restrictive of her freedom of decision and action.[10] Finally, any order appointing an administrator or a guardian should be in terms that impose the least restrictions possible on MJ's freedom of decision and action.[11]
[10] GA Act, s 4(4).
[11] GA Act, s 4(6).
MJ's views and wishes
Financial matters
MJ recognised that she needed some assistance with the management of her finances, particularly with the Apartment and dealing with the Bank. She had made an application to Centrelink for Jobseeker payments, but as DJ pointed out, she had been unsuccessful when making this application previously as she has around $600,000 in assets.
MJ's preference was that she would continue to have access to the 'savings' of $11,000 in the Offset Account in addition to any Jobseeker payments that she would receive.
Medical matters
MJ updated me in relation to the appointment with the neurologist Dr O. Her office had been contacted and MJ was waiting for notification of the date of the appointment. DJ mentioned that MJ does not have private health insurance, so she is waiting in the public system in respect of that appointment.
MJ advised that she had received her monthly injection of medication last week and she received a medical certificate from her GP that states that she is unfit for work for three months, which is relevant to the Centrelink Jobseeker application.
Views about substitute decision-maker
When I asked MJ who she would want to be her guardian if I appointed one, she was agreeable to her father being appointed as her medical treatment guardian. We discussed the results of the neuropsychological report prepared at the Hospital (Neuropsychological Report) (discussed later in these reasons) which confirmed that MJ has issues with memory and planning. MJ understood that it was important to have someone accompany her to medical appointments who could remember the pertinent information and recommendations. MJ was happy for her father to have this oversight and to make decisions about her medical treatment.
In relation to administration, while it was clear that MJ was concerned about losing control of her finances, her preference was that if the Apartment had to be sold, she would want her brother to manage that process rather than foreclosure by the Bank. I could see that it was difficult for MJ to contemplate a future, even if it was only for six months as we discussed, where she did not manage her finances. However, MJ understood that she needed help, and she was willing to accept that help from her family.
Does MJ have a mental disability?
The evidence before the Tribunal about MJ's illness is that she has experienced one period of psychosis, although the family had been concerned about her for a number of years. The discharge summary from the Hospital (Discharge Summary) states that the family noticed that she was talking to herself despite no apparent external stimuli (evidence of hallucinations), inappropriate laughter, disorganised and erratic behaviour at times, disorganised thought and speech, as well as grandiose delusions about her ability to succeed in business roles and in her current work activities, which was not based in reality as she had not been able to work for some time.
The Discharge Summary states that MJ initially presented as perplexed, preoccupied and with a serious disorder of thought form. MJ persevered in her discussion about returning to work in corporate roles with grandiose beliefs that she is well known and well connected. The delusional beliefs included that she had various meetings and interviews arranged.
The MRI of MJ's brain showed frontal-parietal mass loss that was unexpected due to her age. This issue will be followed up with the neurologist as the result of the further investigations, being the PET scan, lumbar puncture and blood tests for autoimmune and encephalitis, may reveal the primary cause of the symptoms that MJ is experiencing.
While a copy of the Neuropsychology Report has not been filed by the Tribunal, MJ told me that DJ has a copy and that she has read it. The Neuropsychology Report is cited in the Service Provider Report, which states:
… [MJ] is likely to be able to make simple, day-to-day financial decisions. However, she is likely to have significantly more difficulty with complex decisions that require forward planning and rely on planning/organisational skills. This is evident as the results of cognitive testing revealed significant difficulties in the areas of cognition that are necessary for complex decision-making (including learning, memory, attention, processing speed and planning/organisation). Moreover, her lack of insight into the circumstances that have made it difficult for her to maintain employment (with [MJ] previously holding delusional ideas that she is still employed as a high earning [finance professional], as well as expressing the idea that she will be able to gain a similar employment in the short term) also undermines her ability to make well reasoned financial decisions.
When the Tribunal is deciding whether a person has a 'mental disability', the person may have 'one, or a combination of more than one, identified medical conditions. In other cases, the underlying cause of a person's mental disability may not be entirely clear, or susceptible to a particular medical diagnosis, but the existence of the mental disability may be beyond doubt'.[12]
[12] FY at [32].
I am satisfied, and I find, that MJ has a mental disability within the definition of the GA Act, and I find that the existence of the mental disability is beyond doubt. In addition to the episode of psychosis and the structural changes noted in the MRI scan, MJ's choices and actions since at least late 2021 have been significantly different from her actions taken in the previous 15 years. This makes it clear, in my view, that her mind is currently 'affected by an impairment, incapacity or inability to function in a manner, or within a range, considered normal'.[13]
[13] FY at [27].
MJ is unquestionably a highly accomplished and talented professional who is currently unwell. The illness is affecting her in a way, as stated by the neuropsychologist, where MJ is likely to have significant difficulty with complex decision-making due to the problems she now has with learning, memory, attention, processing speed and planning/organisation. It is clear that the mental disability is affecting MJ by causing her to be unable to function in a manner, or within a range, that is considered normal for her.
Does the mental disability cause MJ to be unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of her estate?
The Neuropsychology Report states that MJ's lack of insight into her circumstances undermines her ability to make well-reasoned financial decisions for herself. The evidence shows that MJ's recent actions have caused her to lose her valuable real estate portfolio. The family described MJ essentially 'staring down' the foreclosure of her former home overseas, seemingly taking no action in 2023. It appears that the situation with the Apartment is being dealt with by MJ in the same way.
The evidence is that MJ has not earned an income since she briefly worked in around mid-2022. Since then, she has lived off the rental income received from the Apartment and a tax return. MJ has described the remaining $11,000 of rental income in the Offset Account as her 'savings'. DJ made the point that it was not savings and that it was rent that should have been used to pay the Mortgage.
The evidence shows that MJ has not been taking reasonable steps to safeguard her own financial interests. It appears that she has continued to live beyond her means by travelling interstate frequently, renting cars and paying for Airbnb accommodation. I am satisfied that she is currently unable to independently manage her finances.
I find that the mental disability has caused MJ to be unable to make reasonable judgments in relation to all of her estate. When viewed through the lens of MJ's education and training, it is clear that she is currently unable to make reasonable judgments and function in a manner that is considered normal for her.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the presumption of capacity is rebutted by the diagnosis of psychosis and the ongoing investigations into the abnormal MRI results. MJ is therefore a person for whom I can appoint an administrator.
Is MJ unable to look after her own health and safety, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person, or is she in need of oversight care or control?
In terms of guardianship and the ability to make personal decisions, I find that MJ is able to clearly articulate her wishes, which she has done before the Tribunal, and she is agreeable to her father making medical treatment decisions for her. We discussed the need for an order for medical treatment due to the reported issues with MJ's memory. We also discussed the order being in place for six months.
One reason for the proposal of a six-month order was because the antipsychotic medication has been prescribed for six months. MJ states that she is willing to take three months to recover from her illness and then she is hopeful that she will be able to return to work. However, with the uncertainty around the results of the MRI, and having not yet met with the neurologist to discuss the further testing, I am concerned that MJ may be unable to make reasonable judgments about the sorts of things that are required to finalise her medical diagnosis.
MJ was involuntarily admitted to the Hospital on 12 March 2024 and, on 15 March 2024, she sent an email to the Investigator to say:
… I have been asked to stay at [the] Hospital to receive a mental assessment before I return to work. I was provided with an update yesterday that the Hospital would like to keep me here for two weeks to complete the assessment …
Following her discharge from Hospital, MJ sent an email to DJ and LJ on 22 April 2024 where she stated, 'I do need to be back at work asap so please be supportive as I take necessary steps'. Attached to that email was an updated Curriculum Vitae and a document entitled 'Discussion Materials' which was dated April 2024.
I am satisfied that the presumption of capacity in respect of her ability to make reasonable judgments about her personal matters is rebutted by the evidence. MJ lacks insight into the difficulties that she is having, and continues to focus on gaining employment when the medical evidence indicates that she has an illness that has been affecting her in a significant way for a number of years. The cognitive testing shows that she has significant difficulties in areas of cognition that are necessary for complex decision-making such as learning, memory and attention. I am satisfied that these difficulties cause her to be unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person.
I am satisfied that MJ is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety. MJ has travelled interstate on numerous occasions and with her current diagnosis and the results of further testing pending, she needs supervision and oversight in order to keep her safe.
Accordingly, MJ is therefore a person for whom I can appoint a guardian.
Is MJ in need of an administrator or a guardian?
Having regard to the evidence I have just referred to, there is no doubt that MJ requires assistance to deal with her estate and to make decisions about her personal matters, such as dealing with the Bank, finalising the application to Centrelink for Jobseeker payments, and ensuring that she makes and keeps ongoing medical appointments.
The question is whether she needs an administrator and a guardian, or whether there is a less restrictive option available.
I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is no less restrictive means available than the appointment of both an administrator and guardian because the alternative has been tried, which is the informal assistance of her family. Had MJ not had the financial and practical support of her family to date, she would long since have been completely destitute and would not have been taken to the Hospital so promptly by LJ in March 2024 to receive the necessary medical intervention and treatment that she did.
In respect of financial matters, MJ now requires someone with the legal authority to negotiate with the Bank, finalise the application to Centrelink, operate her bank accounts, prepare taxation returns, deal with expenses relating to the Apartment and sell it if required.
In relation to personal matters, MJ needs someone to make decisions around medical treatment, particularly in relation to the prescribed monthly injections, the appointment with a new psychiatrist that is to occur next week and the pending appointment with neurologist Dr O. MJ needs assistance to ensure that the advice and recommendations of the different medical specialists are retained, implemented and communicated to the other medical professionals that are involved in her care.
I find that if it was left to MJ to manage this herself, her desire to return to work is likely to cause her to be unable to focus on, retain and process the medical advice and recommendations being provided.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there are no less restrictive means available for decisions to be made in MJ's best interest other than via the appointment of a plenary administrator and a limited guardian.
Who to appoint?
When considering the appointment of an administrator, the Tribunal must hold the opinion that the administrator will act in the best interests of MJ, is suitable to act as the administrator of her estate,[14] and will be able to perform the functions vested in them.[15]
[14] GA Act, s 68(1).
[15] GA Act, s 68(3)(c).
When considering the appointment of a guardian, the Tribunal must hold the opinion that the proposed guardian will act in the best interests of MJ, is suitable to act as the guardian,[16] is not in a position where their interests conflict or may conflict with MJ's interests,[17] and that the proposed guardian will be able to perform functions vested in them.[18]
[16] GA Act, s 44(1)(a).
[17] GA Act, s 44(1)(c).
[18] GA Act, s 44(1)(b).
The Tribunal also needs to take into account the desirability of preserving existing relationships within MJ's family. We discussed in detail during the Hearing the effect that family appointments could have on the important, supportive relationships that MJ has with her brother and father. This was clearly an issue the family had thought about and they were confident that they could manage acting as MJ's substitute decision‑makers in a manner that would not harm the relationship with MJ.
Administration
LJ has proposed himself as MJ's administrator. I find that LJ is over the age of 18 years and has consented to act as administrator. He is a finance professional, so I have no concerns about his capability to satisfy the requirements of a private administrator[19] and perform the functions vested in a plenary administrator. LJ has a detailed working knowledge of MJ's finances, particularly around the Mortgage with the Bank.
[19] In respect of the annual reporting requirements to the Public Trustee.
I find that LJ will act in the best interests of MJ. It is clear that he has been doing all he can to protect her interests, including making this application to the Tribunal.
I find that LJ is suitable to act as the administrator of the estate because the appointment is consistent with the wishes of MJ, in that while her preference is to have no administrator, she would prefer that LJ is able to negotiate with the Bank and sell the Apartment rather than allowing the Bank to foreclose. LJ will be agile in the role and his appointment will minimise the costs to MJ when compared to the Public Trustee.
Guardianship
DJ has proposed himself as MJ's guardian. I find that DJ is over the age of 18 years and has consented to act as guardian. I am satisfied that DJ will act in MJ's best interests. I am also satisfied that DJ is suitable to act as MJ's guardian as he is not in a position where his interests conflict with hers. The appointment of DJ as guardian is consistent with MJ's wishes and I am satisfied that DJ will be able to perform the functions proposed to be vested in him as the medical treatment guardian.
I am also satisfied that LJ as administrator and DJ as guardian will be able to work together in MJ's best interests.
Functions and powers
Administration
I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the administration order be a plenary order, which will allow the administrator to deal with all aspects of MJ's estate, including dealing with the Bank, the Apartment, the Australian Taxation Office if required, Centrelink and making all financial arrangements in relation to paying ongoing bills as required. I will include a gifting authority of $1,000 per annum to allow LJ to buy gifts on behalf of MJ.
Guardianship
I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the guardianship order be limited and include only the medical treatment function. While this may technically not be necessary with the hierarchy of alternate medical decision-makers set out in s 110ZD of the GA Act, such a function is necessary, in my view, due to MJ's complex presentation, to ensure that any medical professional treating MJ is aware that they are authorised to give information to and receive information from DJ, and that DJ is authorised to make medical treatment decisions for MJ.
While it is possible that services may be required, MJ and her family would likely be able to discuss and manage this process informally using an NDIS nominee. It is too early to know whether there will be a recommendation that MJ access support services to help her recovery. The Investigator noted that the efficacy of any such services is likely to be significantly improved if MJ was a willing participant. It may therefore be counterproductive to have services imposed on her through a guardianship order.
How long should the order run for before it must be reviewed?
When making orders, the Tribunal is required to fix a period for the review of the order.[20]
[20] GA Act, s 84.
The medical evidence states that MJ has had one diagnosed period of psychosis and medical investigations are ongoing with a future appointment anticipated with neurologist Dr O. MJ is young and it simply is not known how this illness may resolve or progress without the advice of the neurologist and observation of how the prescribed six months of medication will affect her.
I will make these orders reviewable in six months' time. Hopefully by the review date, more will be known about MJ's medical condition and what assistance she needs, if any, at that point.
I therefore make the following declarations and orders.
Orders
The Tribunal declares that the represented person, MJ, is:
(a)unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of her estate;
(b)in need of an administrator of her estate;
(c)unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person;
(d)in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety; and
(e)in need of a guardian.
The Tribunal orders:
Administration
1.The order made on 25 January 2024 pursuant to s 65 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) is revoked.
2.[LJ] of [address] is appointed plenary administrator of the represented person's estate with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
3.The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $1,000 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.
4.The administration order is to be reviewed by 29 October 2024.
Guardianship
5.[DJ] of [address] Western Australia is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following function:
(a)to make treatment decisions for the represented person, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
6.The guardianship order is to be reviewed by 29 October 2024.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
10 MAY 2024
0