MW - [2015] WASAT 106

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: MW [2015] WASAT 106

MEMBER: MS F CHILD (MEMBER)

HEARD: 2 APRIL 2015

DELIVERED : 29 SEPTEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: GAA 505 of 2015

BETWEEN: MW
Represented Person
KV
Applicant

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration Application for review of administration order Proposal for appointment of an alternate administrator to Public Trustee Represented person with diagnosis of psychiatric condition Need for an administrator to negotiate property settlement with former spouse Need for administrator with sufficient knowledge expertise and independence to perform this function Proposed appointee not suitable for appointment as lacking sufficient expertise and independence to deal with the property settlement Public Trustee confirmed

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 68

Result:

Appointment of Public Trustee confirmed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

On an application by the daughter of MW, the Tribunal reviewed an order by which the Public Trustee had been appointed plenary administrator of the estate of MW. Leave had been granted only in respect of the issue as to who should be appointed as administrator of MW's estate. The daughter sought review of the order as she had become frustrated with the progress of the property settlement negotiations between the Public Trustee on behalf of the represented person and her mother. She proposed a family friend to be appointed to bring the negotiations to an applicable conclusion in the interests of all the family. The Tribunal accepted that the proposed appointee was concerned for the best interests of the represented person but determined that he lacked sufficient expertise and independence to be appointed as administrator while the property settlement negotiations were underway. The Tribunal reappointed the Public Trustee as the administrator.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : Ms K Sobey
Applicant: In Person

Solicitors:

Represented Person : Office of the Public Trustee
Applicant: N/A

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

These are the reasons for the decision of the Tribunal on a review of an administration order made in respect of the estate of MW (represented person) determined on 2 April 2015.
The daughter of the represented person (applicant) sought and was granted leave to seek review of an order dated 19 December 2013 by which the Public Trustee was appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person. Leave was granted on condition that the review was limited to the question of who should be appointed administrator of the estate.

Background

The represented person has a psychiatric diagnosis of long standing. An administration order was first made in December 2013 following an application by his daughter, the current applicant, following a hospital admission and encouragement by the treating psychiatrist that arrangements needed to be made to protect the represented person's finances due to his illness.

Legislation

All proceedings commenced under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) are subject to principles set out…

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 MW

Details

AGLC: MW [2015] WASAT 106
Case: [2015] WASAT 106
Decision Date: 29 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter under consideration involved a request for the review of an administration order by the Public Trustee, who had been appointed as the administrator of a represented person, MW. MW had been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition and was in need of an administrator to assist in negotiating a property settlement with their former spouse. The Public Trustee was deemed unsuitable for the task due to a perceived lack of expertise and independence. An alternative administrator was proposed to take over the role, but this proposal was ultimately rejected by the court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed alternative administrator possessed the necessary expertise and independence to effectively negotiate the property settlement with MW's former spouse. The court had to balance MW's need for an administrator capable of dealing with the settlement against the suitability of the proposed alternative administrator.

The court carefully considered the evidence and submissions presented on both sides. It was established that the proposed alternative administrator did not have the requisite expertise or independence to handle the complex negotiations required for the property settlement. The court recognised the importance of appointing an administrator who could adequately represent MW's interests in the settlement process. Consequently, the court ruled against the appointment of the proposed alternative administrator and confirmed the Public Trustee's continued role as the administrator for MW.

Orders