MJB and DB - [2013] WASAT 25

MJB and DB [2013] WASAT 25

Last Update: 20/02/2013

MJB and DB [2013] WASAT 25
Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2013] WASAT 25
Published:	14/02/2013
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:4472/2012	Heard:	22 JANUARY 2013
Coram:	JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT), MS S GILLETT (MEMBER), DR A MCCUTCHEON (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)	Delivered:	22/01/2013
No of Pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Limited administration order revoked
Category:	B
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	MJB DB
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration s 17A review Limited administration Mental disability Capacity Capacity to make decisions in relation to settlement of workers' compensation proceeding Capacity to make decisions in relation to conduct of workers' compensation proceeding Medical evidence Views and wishes of represented person Best interests of represented person
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4(2)(b), s 17A, s 64(1)
Case References:	Nil
Summary:	The represented person sought review under s 17A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) of a limited administration order that authorised his father to conduct and settle proceedings on his behalf. In particular, the represented person brought a workers' compensation proceeding and, in September 2012, refused to accept an offer of settlement. The purpose of the limited administration order was to enable the father to settle the proceeding. The Tribunal gave an oral decision following a short adjournment. The Tribunal found that the represented person lacks capacity to make reasonable judgments in relation to the conduct of the workers' compensation proceeding, because his chronic depression and anxiety are complicated by the pressure associated with the conduct of the proceeding which, in September to November 2012, developed into psychosis. However, the Tribunal also found that the represented person has capacity to make reasonable judgments in relation to the settlement of the workers' compensation proceeding, as he is not subject to the same pressure in relation to settlement as in conducting the proceeding, and is being treated with anti-psychotic medication. The Tribunal determined that the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the limited administration order, because although it is in the represented person's best interests for the settlement offer to be accepted, it is also in his best interests, having regard to his strongly expressed view, that, if at all possible, the decision to settle the proceeding should be made by him, rather than for him. Finally, the Tribunal noted that if the represented person does not accept the settlement offer, following written advice from his solicitors recommending its acceptance, then an application should be brought to the Tribunal and determined on an expedited basis for the appointment of an administrator for the further conduct of the workers' compensation proceeding, including its settlement. The Tribunal subsequently published written reasons which are taken from the transcript of oral reasons edited in minor respects.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT

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 MJB and DB

Details

AGLC: MJB and DB [2013] WASAT 25
Case: [2013] WASAT 25
Decision Date: 22 JANUARY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MJB, a person with a mental disability, the Central Administrative Tribunal was tasked with determining whether a limited administration order, previously made, should be revoked. The decision arose from a dispute about MJB's capacity to make decisions in relation to the settlement of a workers' compensation proceeding. The Tribunal needed to decide whether MJB retained the capacity to make such decisions, particularly in light of the medical evidence presented and the views and wishes of MJB.

The primary legal issue was whether MJB had the requisite mental capacity to make decisions concerning the settlement of the workers' compensation proceeding and the conduct of the proceeding. This involved assessing the medical evidence provided and considering MJB's views and wishes, alongside what was deemed to be in MJB's best interests. The Tribunal had to balance these factors to determine if the limited administration order should be revoked, as it was predicated on a finding of incapacity.

The Tribunal found that MJB did not have the capacity to make decisions regarding the settlement of the workers' compensation proceeding and the conduct of the proceeding. However, it also found that MJB had the capacity to make decisions regarding the settlement of the proceeding. The Tribunal concluded that it was in MJB's best interests for the limited administration order to be revoked, given MJB's demonstrated capacity in certain areas. Consequently, the Tribunal revoked the limited administration order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Limited administration order revoked

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.