N - [2025] WASAT 4 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   N [2025] WASAT 4
MEMBER:   DR E MARILLIER, SENIOR MEMBER
HEARD:   4 NOVEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   15 JANUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   GAA 5395 of 2022

N
Represented Person and Applicant

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Delusional Disorder, Persecutory type - Querulous paranoia - Risk of financial harm - Unmeritorious legal action - Exhaustion of resources

Legislation:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3(1), s 4, s 4(2), s 4(3)(c), s 4(3)(d), s 4(4), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 67, s 67(1), s 68(1)(a), s 68(1)(c), s 68(1)(d), s 68(3)(a), s 68(3)(b), s 68(3)(c), s 70, s 74(1), s 78(1)(a), s 84, s 86, s 90, Sch 2, Pt A, cl 15
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 56(1)

Result:

Private plenary administrator appointed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person and Applicant

In Person

Solicitors:

Represented Person and Applicant

N/A

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

FY [2019] WASAT 118
GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10
JCB [2025] WASAT 1
TF by next friend LP v BF as executor and trustee of the estate of AF [2021] WASC 485

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

N is a fiercely independent, highly educated woman who lives interstate and is now in her mid-70s. She has been in conflict with her siblings since the death of their father in 2010 over the income and/or capital she should derive from the complex family trust structure. N has never needed to work due to the income provided throughout her life by her father and the family business. Until her father's death he made all financial arrangements for her under a power of attorney, including her tax returns.
In 2019, the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Supreme Court) made orders appointing M (a solicitor) as the next friend for N in an action against her siblings. This claim under the Family Provision Act1972 (WA) in relation to her mother's estate was referred to mediation. At mediation the parties agreed to attempt to settle N's broader grievance in a global settlement that would see her no longer be involved in any capacity in the family trusts (including as a beneficiary).
On 12 May 2020, the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) made orders (2020 Orders) appointing M as the limited administrator under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) for N:
…
(a)to seek legal advice on behalf of the represented person in relation to all claims relating to the … family and related partnerships, trusts, companies and other entities and to bring and defend actions, suits and other legal proceedings in the name of the represented person in relation to the same and related matters and, if appropriate, settle these matters.
The 2020 Orders were to be reviewed before 12 May 2023.
The Supreme Court matter was settled on confidential terms. The…

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 N

Details

AGLC: N [2025] WASAT 4
Case: [2025] WASAT 4
Decision Date: 15 JANUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved [N] and [M], where the dispute centred around [N]'s capacity to manage her financial and legal affairs, and the necessity for an administration order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether [N] had the mental capacity to manage her affairs or if she was at risk of financial harm due to her delusional disorder and persecutory type paranoia.

The court needed to determine if [N]'s ability to process and understand information related to her legal and financial affairs was significantly impaired, as suggested by [M]. This involved assessing whether [N]'s views and beliefs, which led to her self-harming conduct, were supported by evidence or if they were fixed, false beliefs. The court also had to consider [N]'s history of persistent litigation and retributory regulatory complaints against her family, and whether these behaviours demonstrated her lack of capacity to make sound decisions.

After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that [N]'s capacity to manage her affairs was indeed impaired. It found that [N] was unable to distinguish her opinions from facts and had a history of making false conclusions. Her delusional beliefs and the resulting conduct, such as rejecting professional advice and filing unmeritorious legal actions, demonstrated a lack of capacity to make sound decisions. Consequently, the court ordered that an administration order be made for [N]'s financial affairs, with [M] appointed as the administrator.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

M's closing submissions include the following observations:[66]11.While I concur with evidence before the SAT that [N] is intelligent and capable of managing her day-to-day activities, her capacity to process and understand information related to her legal and financial affairs is significantly impaired. a.False conclusions are made by [N] on the facts she appears to incorrectly filter and store in her memory and those that are correct. I have observed [N] is unable to distinguish her opinions from fact and which she states as conclusions alleging these are factually supported when they are not. These include allegations of fraud, and wrong doing and even events that she asserts took place that didn't, such as alleging I was threatened to be sued, and that the content of material covered by confidentiality agreements with the … family included evidence of fraud uncovered by our forensic analysis. These beliefs have no basis in facts and are false. b.[N]'s views which drives her self harming conduct, are not supported by the evidence before the Tribunal, or the evidence that my firm considered. [N]'s views indicate fixed false beliefs and patterns of behaviour, such as her extreme dissatisfaction with professionals who have advised her, including solicitors and accountants. This is also indicative of her lack of capacity to make sound decisions. [N] has shown a pattern of rejecting advice, contesting costs, and referring professionals to regulators. This pattern also includes complaints about a magistrate and a tribunal member. These behaviours demonstrate an inability to integrate professional advice into her belief system. c.High risk is created for an individual who is intelligent and articulate and yet subject to delusional thinking of a legal and persecutory nature. These beliefs in [N] have a history of persisting in her mind and expressed themselves through a commitment to persistent litigation and for retributory regulatory complaints against her family[.][66] Closing submissions of M, 19 December 2024. M has also provided to Dr M1 (and reproduced in her sworn affidavit to the Supreme Court) what are said to be excerpts of transcripts of conference calls between N and her legal advisers on various dates in 2020.[67] The time locations in the recording are stated where available, but there has been a decision not to provide the full transcript for context (M observed that one of the conference calls went for 12 hours straight and every conference went for hours),[68] which N has observed and says calls into question the veracity of these records.[69] They have also been annotated by M indicating how she says they should be interpreted. [67] Attachment MCA-12 (n 63) 11 - 52.[68] ts 61, 4 November 2024.[69] N's final submission filed 19 December 2024, folio 171 of matter GAA/5395/2022, Chapter 3, pages 34 - 36. I have given weight to the contemporaneous records of professionals which appear to be in their complete, original form over any documents provided by any party which are not.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.