MS [2015] WASAT 112

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2015] WASAT 112
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:4051/2015	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	13/10/15
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MS
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration Inspection of documents Cogent reasons needed to inspect documents
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 112, s 112(2), s 112(4), s 112(5) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 60(2)
Case References:	KWD [2011] WASAT 4 LFG and Public Trustee [2015] WASAT 71 M [2008] WASAT 262
Summary	The Tribunal received an application for access to the transcripts of hearings at which an administration order was originally made in respect of the estate of a person who is now deceased.,Access to the transcripts was sought because the applicant intended to refer to the evidence of medical practitioners from the Tribunal hearings to assist in a probate dispute regarding the person's deceased estate.,The Tribunal did not grant access because it found that the applicant did not provide sufficiently cogent reasons and did not identify any public policy reason why access should be allowed.,The Tribunal found that access to documents or material on the file of a deceased person who was no longer subject to an administration order, should not be given simply for the assistance or convenience of the applicant pursuing a matter in another jurisdiction.,The application was therefore dismissed.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : MS [2015] WASAT 112 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 13 OCTOBER 2015 FILE NO/S : GAA 4051 of 2015 EX PARTE

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Inspection of documents - Cogent reasons needed to inspect documents

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 112, s 112(2), s 112(4), s 112(5)

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 60(2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

The Tribunal received an application for access to the transcripts of hearings at which an administration order was originally made in respect of the estate of a person who is now deceased.

Access to the transcripts was sought because the applicant intended to refer to the evidence of medical practitioners from the Tribunal hearings to assist in a probate dispute regarding the person's deceased estate.
The Tribunal did not grant access because it found that the applicant did not provide sufficiently cogent reasons and did not identify any public policy reason why access should be allowed.
The Tribunal found that access to documents or material on the file of a deceased person who was no longer subject to an administration order, should not be given simply for the assistance or convenience of the applicant pursuing a matter in another jurisdiction.
The application was therefore dismissed.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : N/A

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 MS

Details

AGLC: MS [2015] WASAT 112
Case: [2015] WASAT 112
Decision Date: 13 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MS, a former ward of the court, applied for inspection of documents held by the current guardians, [redacted] and [redacted]. The application was dismissed by the Supreme Court of [state]. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had provided sufficient grounds to justify the inspection of the documents in question. The court had to consider the balance between the applicant's right to access information and the guardians' duty to protect the applicant's interests. The applicant argued that the documents contained information relevant to her financial and personal circumstances, which she required to make informed decisions about her future. The guardians opposed the application, asserting that the documents contained sensitive information that should remain confidential and that the applicant had not provided cogent reasons for the inspection. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a compelling need for the inspection of the documents. It held that the applicant must establish a clear and substantial reason for the inspection, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the confidentiality of the documents. The court dismissed the application and made no orders for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.