MRS AEIBR

[2005] WASAT 17

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM:   HUMAN RIGHTS

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990

CITATION:   MRS AEIBR [2005] WASAT 17

MEMBER:   MS D DEAN (MEMBER)

HEARD:   ON PAPERS

DELIVERED          :   16 FEBRUARY 2005

FILE NO/S:   SAT 724 of 2004

BETWEEN:     MRS AEIBR

Subject

Catchwords:

Request for withdrawal of Administration application

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990, s 4(2)(a) and s 64

State Administrative Tribunal Act 1994, s 46

Result:

Granted leave for the applicant to withdraw the application for administration

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Subject:     Self Represented

Solicitors:

Subject:    

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MS D DEAN (MEMBER):

REASONS FOR DECISIONS

Background

1. The applicant, Mrs W, wrote to the State Administrative Tribunal ("SAT") on 27 January 2005 requesting withdrawal of her application for an administration order for her mother, AEIBR ("PRP").

2. Mrs W and her sister, Mrs C, are joint donees for an Enduring Power of Attorney ("EPA") for their mother, AEIBR.  The application for an administration order was made to the SAT by Mrs W for her mother, AEIBR, because of disagreements between the two attorneys about how to administer the estate of their mother.

3. A major problem for the attorneys was coming to a decision about what to do about the house of the PRP that had been empty since the PRP moved into supported accommodation approximately four years ago.  The house has been valued at approximately $600,000.  Mrs W believed that the PRP wanted the house to be sold and the proceeds to be used to fund her lifestyle whereas Mrs C believed that the PRP did not want the house to be sold despite the fact that there is currently a shortfall in funds required by the PRP of approximately $2,500 per year which is covered by Mrs C.

4. There have been other ongoing disagreements about the management of the estate by the two attorneys, one of whom lives in Western Australia and the other in Victoria, which sometimes makes communication and the sharing of tasks difficult.

5. On 20 January 2005, both attorneys met with a representative of the Office of the Public Advocate ("OAP") who informed them of her contact with the PRP and her report to the Guardianship and Administration Board on 24 December 2004 in which she reported that the PRP wanted the status quo with respect of the management of her estate to remain.  The PRP expressed her wish to keep her house, and indicated that she was happy with the current arrangement that her daughter, Mrs C, pick up the shortfall in funds of approximately $2,500 per year.

6. As a result of the meeting between the OPA representative and the two attorneys on 20 January 2005, the applicant accepted that the PRP wants to keep her house and is happy with the administration of her estate to continue to be with her daughters.

Relevant Legislation

1. Section 64 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 provides for the appointment of an administrator if a person suffers from a mental disability, is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of their estate and is in need of an administrator.

2. This is subject to s 4 of the Act which contains the principles to be observed by the Tribunal and which includes at subs (2)(c) that an order shall not be made if the needs of the person can be met by other means less restrictive of the person's freedom of decision and action.  The primary concern of the Tribunal shall be the best interests of the proposed represented person (subs 4(2)(a)).

3. Section 46 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 1994 allows for, amongst other things, the Tribunal to give leave for an applicant to withdraw their application.

Findings of Fact

1. The Tribunal finds on the information before it that the current EPAs have resolved their differences to the point that they are now able to work effectively together to manage the estate of the PRP.  Further, the PRP has indicated in the past, by making an EPA in favour of her daughters, and more recently in conversation with others, that she wants her daughters to continue to administer her estate.  Continuous management by the attorneys would appear to be the least restrictive option and in the best interests of the PRP.

Reasons for Decision

1. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's request for withdrawal of the application for an administration order for the following reasons:

   •Both attorneys are now in agreement that the PRP wants to keep her house;

   •Both attorneys accept that there will continue to be a shortfall in funds which will be topped up by Mrs C;

   •Both attorneys acknowledge that there have been some problems in the past because of different styles of communication but agree to overcome these differences;

   •The PRP's needs are being met and the property and expenses are being maintained;

   •The least restrictive alternative is meeting the needs and wishes of the PRP;

   •Both attorneys are aware that if the need arises, they can make an application to the SAT for an order in the future.

Decision

1. The Tribunal gives leave for the applicant, Mrs W, to withdraw her application for an administration order in respect of her mother, AEIBR.

I certify that this and the preceding four pages comprise the reasons for decision of the Tribunal.

___________________________

D Dean
Member