NDB - [2024] WASAT 34

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   NDB [2024] WASAT 34
MEMBER:   MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
HEARD:   23 FEBRUARY 2024, 12 MARCH 2024 AND 28 MARCH 2024
DELIVERED          :   18 APRIL 2024
PUBLISHED           :   24 APRIL 2024
FILE NO/S:   GAA 173 of 2024
GAA 967 of 2024
NDB
Proposed Represented Person
RA
Applicant

Catchwords:

Application for guardianship and administration - Best interests of represented person - Weight given to medical opinion of specialist geriatrician - Reliance on screening tools to establish capacity - Multiple RUDAS tests - Three wills prepared within three months - Evidence of impaired judgment in 'real world' - Independence of interpreters used in Tribunal proceedings - Family members proposed as guardian and administrator - Family members found to be unsuitable to be guardian and administrator - Entrenched family conflict

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s 44(1), s 44(1)(a), s 44(1)(b), s 44(1)(c), s 44(2)(d), s 64, s 64(1)(b), s 65, s 68(1), s 68(1)(c), s 68(1)(d), s 68(3)(a), s 68(3)(b), s 68(3)(c), s 70(2)(d), s 72, s 107(1)(a), s 107(1)(b), s 109(1)(a)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2), s 32(4)

Result:

Public Trustee appointed plenary administrator
Public Advocate appointed limited guardian

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Proposed Represented Person	:	In Person
Applicant	:	MG Di Martino

Solicitors:

Proposed Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	MGD Law

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

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
FY [2019] WASAT 118
GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10
LP [2020] WASAT 25
XYZ (Guardianship) [2007] VCAT 1196

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

NDB is a 102-year-old man who has lived alone at his home (Property) for 40 years since the passing of his wife. He has two sons, RA and JJ, and two daughters, SV and TW. NDB's grandson, JJ's son, has the same name as NDB and is referred to as 'GS' in these reasons.
NDB appointed his sons RA and JJ to be his joint and several attorneys by an enduring power of attorney dated 28 April 2017 (EPA) prepared by Law Firm H. From 2020, JJ was trusted by his siblings to manage NDB's finances and personal matters. He received a carer's pension in respect of same.
RA, SV, TW and RA's wife MA first became concerned about NDB's welfare and the management of his finances in June 2023 following allegations of significant financial exploitation by a neighbour. By September 2023, the relationship between RA, MA, SV and TW on the one hand, and JJ and GS on the other, had deteriorated. JJ's view is that his siblings only became involved when NDB prepared a new will on 29 November 2023 (November Will) that made a significant gift to GS and correspondingly reduced their anticipated inheritance.
In respect of safety, RA says that NDB's home is in a state of disrepair, is cluttered, and poses trip and electrical hazards, with NDB experiencing at least four falls in the last 12 months. NDB's bedroom contains an outdoor gas heater which is connected to a gas bottle and two full gas bottles are stored in the adjoining room, creating significant risk to NDB.
During a fifteen-day admission to Hospital J in January 2024 for an infected right shin, a capacity assessment was performed by geriatrician Dr G. RA filed applications to the Tribunal for guardianship and administration due to concerns about NDB's personal safety, coercion and financial abuse. RA also filed an application for the filing of records and accounts in respect of JJ's use of the EPA.
Hearings occurred at the Tribunal on 23 February 2024 (First Hearing), 12 March 2024 (Second Hearing) and 28 March 2024 (Third Hearing). At the First Hearing, GS disclosed that NDB had signed a new will on 20 February 2024 (February Will) and an enduring power of guardianship (EPG) appointing JJ as his guardian. RA later filed a further application to vary or revoke the EPG.
GS also revealed at the First Hearing that NDB, unbeknown to the rest of the family, had been recently hospitalised under the care of geriatrician Dr K, who asked questions about NDB's cognition and concluded that he was 'fine' and 'amazing for 102'.[1]
[1] ts 26, 23 February 2024.
I made orders, among others, to require Dr K to file a medical report, and due to my concerns about NDB's finances, I made an order appointing the Public Trustee as his emergency administrator.[2]
[2] GA Act, s 65.
The Second Hearing was a discussion about the records and accounts held by JJ in respect of the transactions made pursuant to the EPA. Orders were made by consent that JJ would file the 'shoe box' of receipts that related to the transactions he had undertaken pursuant to the EPA. As JJ filed the documents, and with the consent of RA, I will make an order to dismiss that application.
The new capacity evidence from Dr K and the report from the Public Trustee were discussed at the Third Hearing, which NDB did not attend. J stated that NDB did not feel like coming as he is not used to attending 'Court'.
GS explained that NDB did not understand the questions asked of him by the independent interpreter organised by the Tribunal (Oncall Interpreter) at the First Hearing. Because the Tribunal would not allow the private interpreter requested by GS to interpret for NDB, Ms RP (Private Interpreter), NDB allegedly did not want to attend.

Capacity to make a will

The role of the Tribunal is not to determine whether or not a person had testamentary capacity to sign a will at a particular time.[3] The Tribunal's role is to determine whether or not a person has the cognitive capacity to make reasonable judgments in respect of financial, legal and personal matters, and if not, to appoint substitute decisionmakers.
[3] These matters are dealt with by the Supreme Court.
As capacity assessments were performed on NDB in the context of signing new wills, the discussion about NDB's capacity necessarily involves the examination of his capacity to sign specific legal documents at the time the capacity assessments occurred.

Concerns about finances

NDB's estate

NDB receives an Australian and overseas pension which total around $1,200 per fortnight, which is approximately $31,000 per year. Despite owning his own home and living a frugal life, NDB's estate currently consists of:
(a)the Property, with a land value of around $800,000;
(b)a term deposit holding around $32,000 that was left to him by his late wife, to be used for his funeral (Term Deposit); and
(c)a passbook account and a bank account that held balances of $942 and $2,892 respectively as at 11 March 2024.[4]
[4] Report from the Public Trustee dated 28 March 2024.
On 29 November 2023, the same day the November Will was signed, NDB signed a document that stated:
NDB of [address] in the state of Western Australia, Retired Council Worker hereby agree that:
1.My son [JJ] has the use of my pension in the following way:
a.Firstly, he must pay all expenses that I incur including household and other expenses;
b.Secondly, once the expenses are paid he make use the remaining funds.
I make this decision while I have capacity and as recompense for [JJ] looking after me and the house.
(Pension Authorisation)
The schedule filed by JJ with the Tribunal setting out NDB's assets, liabilities, income and expenses (Schedule)[5] is consistent with the terms of the Pension Authorisation. JJ estimates that once NDB's bills are paid, JJ would receive approximately $4,500 per year in 'primary carer remuneration' in addition to approximately $1,800 per year of 'primary carer expenses' which includes vehicle servicing, petrol and parts.
[5] Filed 31 January 2024.
The Schedule also sets out expenses of approximately $5,200 per year on 'Personal services (based on avg. weekly visits)' which refers to the funds allegedly received by the neighbour 'M' discussed below. The Schedule also includes $1,200 per year in gifts to greatgrandchildren. The payments to JJ, M and gifting total $12,700, which is around 40% of NDB's income, leaving him with around $18,000 income per year.

June 2023 - Money alleged to have been taken by the neighbour M

In June 2023, JJ told his siblings that a local woman 'M' had been taking half of NDB's pension money for around 40 years following the passing of their mother. The Schedule records $100 per week but JJ explained that M has been assisting NDB with housework and providing company, and in exchange, NDB had given her half of his pension, but sometimes up to $800 or $1,000 each fortnight.[6]
[6] ts 12, 23 February 2024.
JJ said that these payments stopped around 12 months ago, but then mentioned that M does sometimes still attend NDB's home, and she was there three weeks prior to the First Hearing.[7]
[7] ts 12, 23 February 2024.
RA gave evidence that JJ told him that M continued to demand up to $800 every fortnight, so RA attempted to talk to NDB in June 2023 about the issue. RA said to NDB:
'How can you afford that? You're only getting a thousand dollars a fortnight with his pension'. So I fronted Dad again ...
And I had an argument with him over it and I said, 'Why are you giving this woman so much money? It's most of your pension'. And, in fact, I don't believe it was true. That was just something that [JJ] was saying to get me to argue with the old man before he went [overseas].[8]
[8] ts 17, 28 March 2024.
RA said that he tried to speak to NDB about this issue on a few occasions, but because it caused conflict, he stopped trying.[9] JJ said that during one of these discussions, NDB 'got very angry' and said to RA 'That lady is not what you just said. She's a friend. She's company for me. She comes here'. And according to him it was quite okay to go to the shops and go 50/50 [on the pension]'.[10]
[9] ts 18, 28 March 2024.
[10] ts 13, 23 February 2024.
SV gave evidence that she spoke with M in 2023. M said that she met NDB when she was 21 and seven months pregnant, and that they were just good friends. SV confirmed that when she later spoke with NDB, what he told her was consistent with what M had said.[11]
[11] ts 17, 28 March 2024.
RA's solicitor advised that M was contacted and asked to clarify the allegations that had been made at the First Hearing. M was shocked and vehemently denied the allegations.[12] M advised that she visited NDB regularly over a number of decades as they were good friends. M had considered attending the Third Hearing and speaking to the allegations but decided against it.
[12] ts 16, 28 March 2024.

12 September 2023 - JJ's return from overseas

Prior to JJ going overseas from 20 June to 12 September 2023, the siblings decided that SV would hold NDB's bankcard so she could assist with his finances. SV drove two and a half hours from her home to NDB's home, twice per week, to care for NDB while JJ was away.[13]
[13] ts 40, 23 February 2024.
When SV attempted to use NDB's bankcard at an ATM, it was withheld by the bank as it had expired. JJ had given the current bankcard to GS, who was also assisting NDB while JJ was away.[14] SV says that she confronted JJ about the bank card upon his return and asked for a copy of NDB's bank statement to see how much money M had allegedly taken from NDB. SV told JJ that she would speak to NDB about the money that M had taken[15] and JJ told her that if she did not stay quiet, she would be 'out of the will'.[16]
[14] JJ letter to the Tribunal dated 23 January 2024
[15] ts 39, 23 February 2024.
[16] Submissions prepared by RA’s solicitor dated 31 January 2024 (RA Submissions); ts 39, 23 February 2024.
SV said there was a 'big argument' where NDB demanded his passbook back from JJ.[17] SV said she heard NDB call JJ a 'crook' and accused JJ of stealing from him.[18] SV says that JJ said that NDB would not see JJ or his partner GB ever again, and that GB would no longer make his bed, change his sheets or do his cleaning.[19] SV said that NDB was extremely angry and then turned on her and pointed his finger at her. She said it was extremely out of character for NDB to be so angry.[20]
[17] ts 40, 23 February 2024.
[18] ts 40, 23 February 2024.
[19] ts 42, 23 February 2024.
[20] ts 44, 23 February 2024.
During further discussions, NDB told SV that GS must receive some of his land in his will because there is a law that says that because GS carries his name, GS must be in his will.[21] SV told NDB that it was not the law, and NDB was firm in his view that it was the law.[22]
[21] ts 39, 23 February 2024.
[22] ts 39, 23 February 2024.
These comments, along with concerns about M and JJ's refusal to provide NDB's bank statements to SV caused RA, SV and TW to be concerned about JJ's management of NDB's finances. RA obtained statements from NDB's bank accounts using the EPA soon thereafter.[23]
[23] RA Submissions.

29 November - capacity assessment and November Will - Law Firm H

NDB signed wills in 2012[24] and 2020[25] that divided his estate equally between his four children. Solicitor H of Law Firm H prepared the EPA in 2017 and the 2020 Will.
[24] Will signed 29 March 2012 when he was 90, appointing the Public Trustee as his executor and gifting his estate equally between his four children.
[25] Will signed on 28 August 2020 was prepared by Law Firm H, appointed RA and JJ as executors, and divided his estate equally between his four children.
RA, as NDB's joint attorney, was advised by Solicitor H that on 21 November 2023, JJ and GS took NDB to Law Firm H to change his will. Solicitor H advised JJ and GS that he was unable to make any changes to NDB's will as he required a medical assessment and for an interpreter to be present.[26]
[26] RA Submissions.
On 29 November 2023, GS arranged for the Private Interpreter to attend an appointment with a general practitioner Dr C to have a capacity assessment performed on NDB.[27] In attendance at the appointment with Dr C were NDB, JJ, GS and the Private Interpreter.
[27] ts 8, 28 March 2024.
A Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) was performed with the assistance of the Private Interpreter and NDB scored 23/30. Dr C stated in a letter that this 'score indicated NDB is of sound mind with normal cognitive function'.
NDB, JJ, GS and the Private Interpreter then attended Law Firm H to sign the November Will, the terms of which included:
(a)RA and JJ were appointed as executors, consistent with the 2020 Will;
(b)NDB's primary residence was to be divided into three parts, with one part being gifted to GS and the other two parts to be divided equally between RA, TW, SV and GS;
(c)the subdivision is to be developed by GS within two years; and
(d)the remainder of NDB's estate to be divided between RA, TW, SV and GS.

21 December - December Will - Law Firm H

On 14 December 2023, RA asked NDB if he had made a new will and NDB initially denied doing so. RA and NDB later attended upon Solicitor H and were provided with an unsigned copy of the November Will. RA says that he asked NDB what the terms of the November Will were, and NDB told him that it gifted one third each to JJ, GS and RA. SV and TW would get 'a little bit'.[28]
[28] RA Submissions.
RA says that he read the November Will to NDB in its entirety, in NDB's first language, two or three times. RA explained that JJ was not included, and that in addition to receiving one third of the Property, GS also received a quarter of the other two parts and a quarter of the remainder of the estate. RA says that NDB did not appreciate that JJ was not in the will. NDB then said that he wanted to change the gift in the will to five equal shares.
RA then made an appointment with Solicitor H and the Private Interpreter for 21 December 2023. NDB signed the December Will that appointed RA and JJ as executors and divided NDB's estate equally in five parts to be gifted to each of GS and NDB's four children. RA kept the December Will in his possession.

10 January - capacity assessment at Hospital J

On 7 January 2024, NDB called RA to advise that JJ was taking him to Hospital J due to an infected wound on his right shin.[29] RA said that NDB sternly asked RA to bring the December Will to his home tomorrow, and if it was not the same as the November Will, JJ wanted it changed back.
[29] Discharge summary from Hospital J.
RA was told by a doctor at the Emergency Department at Hospital J that NDB should be admitted to receive intravenous antibiotics but JJ wanted to take NDB home to be treated with oral antibiotics and Panadol. RA agreed for NDB to be admitted, and shortly thereafter, he was.
On 8 January 2024, RA sat with NDB at Hospital J from 6.30 am to 5.30 pm and noticed a shift in NDB's demeanour by the late afternoon, when NDB became agitated and seemed like a different person.[30]
[30] RA Submissions.
NDB was under the care of specialist geriatrician Dr G from 8 to 23 January 2024. On 9 January 2024, RA received a telephone call from Dr G, on JJ's telephone, advising that JJ wished to have NDB discharged from hospital to attend a meeting with his solicitor the next day.
Dr G recommended that NDB remain in hospital to continue the intravenous antibiotics. RA agreed with Dr G that NDB should not be discharged, and he asked whether NDB could undergo a capacity assessment.
Dr G performed a capacity assessment on NDB on 10 January 2024 with the assistance of an independent interpreter organised by Hospital J. The notes from this meeting state:
(a)NDB and the interpreter exchanged greetings and NDB understood the interpreter clearly;
(b)NDB recognised Dr G's face but could not recall where he met her;
(c)NBD had lost track of his finances as JJ handles all of the finances;
(d)NDB asked the doctor about what would happen if his health deteriorated. He mentioned that he had lived a long life and he would want to be 'saved' if he became unwell (for example, resuscitation) but he would prefer quality of life over longevity; and
(e)Dr G's handwritten notes say that NDB:[31]
… was able to show good understanding of basic medical processes and express his value system. His ability to problem solve higher medical issues, complex financial matters [unintelligible] suboptimal and that's when [NDB] became tangential.
Capacity to make simple financial decisions = Yes
Capacity to make complex financial decisions = No
Capacity to make lifestyle decisions = Yes
Capacity to make simple medical decisions and even complex = Yes.
[31] Handwritten clinic notes filed by Hospital J.
Dr G advised during a family meeting on 12 January 2024 that NDB had a mild cognitive impairment, and while NDB retained some capacity, he 'does not have the capacity to sign complex legal documents, regardless of the presence of an interpreter'.[32] Further, NDB 'has capacity to make simple but not complex financial decisions or signing legal documents due to cognitive capacity'.[33]
[32] Handwritten clinic notes filed by Hospital J; notes of intern Dr K made in family meeting of 12 January 2024.
[33] Handwritten clinic notes filed by Hospital J; notes of social worker made in family meeting of 12 January 2024.
RA says that during the family meeting, JJ questioned Dr G's credentials and qualifications.[34] In a letter to Dr G dated 17 January 2024, JJ stated that he was surprised to hear Dr G's view that NDB was unable to sign legal documents as NDB had recently undertaken the RUDAS test with Dr C and scored 23/30. JJ asked Dr G to '… please elaborate and provide me with details on who did the assessment/test, and how the test was carried out?'[35] GS confirmed in the First Hearing that he also did not accept Dr G's conclusion as to NDB's capacity because Dr C stated that NDB had capacity.[36]
[34] RA Submissions; ts 33, 28 March 2024.
[35] Letter from JJ to Dr G dated 17 January 2024.
[36] ts 23-25, 23 February 2024.

23 January - discharge from hospital and altercation at NDB's home

NDB was discharged from Hospital J on 23 January 2024. SV, RA and his wife MA attended NDB's home to deliver some groceries while JJ was present. RA says that NDB asked him where the December Will was and looked nervous, agitated and aggressive. RA told him not to worry about that and to focus on getting better.
As NDB was becoming more agitated, RA suggested that he, MA and SV should leave, and he told NDB that they would come back another time. SV says that she had never seen NDB be so aggressive.[37]
[37] ts 46, 23 February 2024.
RA, MA and SV say that there was a physical altercation as they were leaving, and they allege that JJ pushed MA out of the door. They say that RA was injured when he put his arm between the door and the door frame to protect MA.[38]
[38] ts 45, 23 February 2024.
The next day, SV called NDB to talk about the events of the previous day.[39] NDB said that JJ wanted to see the December Will. SV told NDB that she could not come to see him as she was scared of more violence. NDB said that he did not care, and he did not want her or 'the rest of them' to visit.
[39] ts 46, 23 February 2024.
SV says that NDB said that he does not need anyone else, and that JJ is his 'number 1' and looks after him. SV says that NDB became aggressive during the call and twice said that he would hang up on her.[40] SV says that she cannot recall a time when NDB ever spoke to her in such a way.
[40] ts 46, 23 February 2024.
Apart from the First Hearing, RA, MA, SV and TW have not seen NDB since 23 January 2024. RA, through his solicitor, commented that the relationship between NDB and all of his children had been very loving for many years, and they made various contributions to his care, by way of meals, washing clothes, having him over for dinner and special occasions, and keeping NDB company.[41]
[41] ts 25, 23 February 2024.
RA, SV and TW say that they are now finding it difficult to reconnect with NDB because of concerns for their safety, NDB's safety and a general reluctance to attend NDB's home because JJ may be there.[42]
[42] ts 36, 23 February 2024.

30 January - capacity assessment

On 29 January 2024, JJ and GS met with Solicitor D and Solicitor M at Law Firm FM to seek specialist legal advice about the Tribunal Proceedings.[43]
[43] ts 46, 28 March 2024.
On 30 January 2024, JJ and GS took NDB and the Private Interpreter to meet with general practitioner Dr O for a further capacity assessment. In a medical report filed with the Tribunal the same day, Dr O stated that she had met NDB once and performed a RUDAS, with NDB scoring 25/30. Dr O concluded that NDB did not have a mental disability.

9 February – meeting with Solicitor P from Law Firm L

On 9 February 2024, JJ and GS arranged for the Private Interpreter to attend the Property for a meeting with Solicitor P from Law Firm L. Solicitor P took instructions from NDB, with the assistance of the Private Interpreter, to prepare a new enduring power of attorney, enduring power of guardianship and a new will.[44]
[44] Letter from Solicitor P dated 11 March 2024.
I asked JJ why they took NDB to see a new solicitor, rather than attend Law Firm H. JJ said the change was made because Solicitor H told RA about the November Will. JJ said that 'when you make a will, you don't share it around'.[45]
[45] ts 16, 23 February 2024.

11-14 February - hospitalisation at Hospitals S and O

NDB developed a non-productive cough during his admission to Hospital J,[46] which developed into a productive cough by around 8 February 2024. After three days of the productive cough and feeling feverish, JJ and GS took NDB to the emergency department of Hospital S where he was diagnosed with pneumonia and constipation.
[46] Discharge summary from Hospital J dated 23 January 2024.
NDB was transferred to Hospital O for a further two nights, under the care of geriatrician Dr K, for continued intravenous antibiotics, further chest physiotherapy and for the continued management of constipation. NDB was discharged from Hospital O on 14 February 2024 and in addition to pneumonia and constipation, NDB was diagnosed with hypotension, an acute kidney injury and atrial fibrillation. The wound on his right shin was also redressed and a 'possible cognitive impairment' was noted by the occupational therapist.[47]
[47] Clinic notes filed by Hospital O, noted by the occupational therapist.
JJ and GS gave evidence that they did not tell RA, SV and TW that NDB was in hospital because NDB did not want them to come to see him. JJ reported that NDB said, 'Every time I see them, I get into an argument'. What was the purpose? Why should I? Even in hospital … he used to get angry … why should I do something that he's not happy with?'[48] JJ and GS therefore decided not to tell the rest of the family because their view was that it was not in NDB's best interests to do so.[49]
[48] ts 27-28, 23 February 2024.
[49] ts 29, 23 February 2024.

20 February - February Will, 2024 EPG and EPG at Law Firm L

On 20 February 2024, JJ and GS arranged for the Private Interpreter to attend Law Firm L with NDB to sign the:
(a)2024 EPA;
(b)EPG; and
(c)February Will with the following terms:
(i)GS appointed as executor;
(ii)GS to receive the communications NDB received for his 100^th birthday that had been put into a frame from:
(A)Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II;
(B)the Governor General of Australia;
(C)the Prime Minister of Australia;
(D)the Premier of Western Australia; and
(E)the Governor of Western Australia
(Centenarian Communications);
(iii)NDB's Property to vest in GS and be subdivided by GS within two years of NDB's death;
(iv)the Property to be subdivided into three parts and gifted:
(A)one part to GS with him having the absolute right to choose which part of the property he wishes to vest in him;[50] and
(B)the other two parts to be divided equally between RA, TW, SV and GS as tenants-in-common;[51] and
(v)the residue of the estate is to be divided between JJ, RA, SV and TW as tenants-in-common.
[50] GS to receive 33.3%.
[51] 66.6/4 = 16.7%, so GS to receive a further16.7%.
The 2024 EPA, EPG and February Will were witnessed by Solicitor P and the Private Interpreter. In total, the February Will granted an entitlement to GS of 50% of the Property.[52]
[52] 33.3% + 16.7% = 50%.
GS confirmed that prior to taking NDB to Law Firm L, he was aware of Dr G's medical opinion, but he did not accept her conclusion as to capacity. His belief was:[53]
… we've got two GPs, they've done a screen on him where he has passed … then I've got a geriatrician that has looked at him [Dr K]. Okay, maybe not over 15 days, but she felt – well, there was no concerns for her to detail that she thought to mention or to document that he didn't have capacity.
[53] ts 26, 23 February 2024.
When I asked why the documents were signed on 20 February 2024 when all parties were due to attend the First Hearing three days later, JJ gave evidence that it was NDB's wish as he said to JJ 'This is what I want. Let's get it done'.[54]
[54] ts 30, 23 February 2024.

23 February - First Hearing at the Tribunal

NDB attended the First Hearing in person and was assisted by an independent interpreter organised by the Tribunal (Oncall Interpreter). I am satisfied that he understood the questions I was asking through the Oncall Interpreter. While GS expressed concerns that NDB did not understand what he was being asked, JJ confirmed to the Tribunal that NDB did understand the questions when asked by the Oncall Interpreter.[55]

Orders made

[55] ts 18, 23 February 2024.

Following the discussion about M and receipt of the February Will, I found it was necessary to protect and secure NDB's estate. I made orders to appoint the Public Trustee as his emergency administrator[56] and to direct that RA and JJ not take any action under the EPA.
[56] GA Act, s 65.
In light of JJ and GS's decision not to inform the family about the recent hospitalisation, I ordered that JJ was not to act under the EPG. On the basis that a further geriatrician assessed NDB at Hospital O, I prepared a further order for Dr K to prepare a medical report to be filed with the Tribunal.

Evidence of NDB

After speaking with NDB, I mentioned to the Oncall Interpreter that when I asked a direct question, NDB would give a lengthy explanation. I asked the Oncall Interpreter if she was summarising what he said. She said that there was 'some summarising if [his answer has] gone back over the same thing again, and sometimes it progresses from the answer. [His answer] goes on to not directly responding the question that you had asked'.[57] I then asked her to interpret exactly what he said.
[57] ts 8, 23 February 2024.
To summarise NDB's evidence as interpreted by the Oncall Interpreter:
(a)I asked when he bought the Property. NDB explained the background of purchasing the land, building a home and then bringing his family out from [Country]. He then explained that he did not remarry after his wife's passing because of the effect that would have on the land that his children would inherit, and that there are three blocks. At that point the Oncall Interpreter interrupted him to interpret what he has said;[58]
(b)when I asked if that meant that the Property could be divided into three, he explained how one block is for GS and the other two blocks are to be divided between four people, two males and two females. He then again explained that the reason he did not remarry is because it would mean a new wife would inherit half the block, and one of the blocks is for GS;[59]
(c)I asked him when he last saw a lawyer, and he said around one or two months ago, but then he said in English 'last week I think?'[60] When I asked him what he spoke to the lawyer about, he said 'we were talking about the same things were talking about here, about how I didn't take on another wife because I was trying to keep everything together, and so that my grandson could have one piece of land because he carries my name';[61]
(d)I asked him who took him to see the lawyer. He said he did not remember but he found the EPG in the letterbox;[62]
(e)When I asked him about signing the EPG and he was shown the document, he said 'I signed but it wasn't explained to me what exactly I was signing. I thought that it was the account that I was getting out of hospital. So it wasn't really explained to me, but I signed it'. He mentioned that he was in hospital last week and they kept him there to ask him about his life;[63]
(f)I asked him about the Pension Authorisation, and he said that he 'gave the order' that JJ can keep his money;[64] and
(g)I asked him about how he would pay any emergency expenses that came up, and he said that he has the Term Deposit. I asked him how much was in the Term Deposit, and he said 'Well there's about $10,000 in the deposit, or maybe I've taken some out. Or maybe it's five or maybe six'. He was not able to tell me how many bank accounts he had, even when asked twice.[65]
[58] ts 6, 23 February 2024.
[59] ts 7, 23 February 2024.
[60] ts 7, 23 February 2024.
[61] ts 7, 23 February 2024.
[62] ts 9, 23 February 2024.
[63] ts 7, 23 February 2024.
[64] ts 10, 23 February 2024.
[65] ts 10, 23 February 2024.

19 March 2024 - capacity assessment

NDB, GS and the Private Interpreter met with Dr K on 19 March 2024 to undergo the capacity assessment. Dr K performed a RUDAS on NDB in which he scored 26/30. JJ said that he was very happy with the report from Dr K, as because NDB's RUDAS score had increased from 23 to 26, his cognition is getting better, not worse.[66]
[66] ts 5, 28 March 2024.

GS's requests for the Private Interpreter to attend the Third Hearing

GS made multiple requests for the Private Interpreter to interpret for NDB at the Third Hearing. On 13 March 2024, GS first made the request as he was 'concerned that NDB is not fully understanding questions being asked of him from the [Oncall Interpreter] ... Even if there is a 1% chance that using [the Private Interpreter] will allow NDB to better understand what is being asked of him, then why would the Tribunal deny NDB of having a fair hearing?'[67]
[67] Letter from GS to Tribunal dated 13 March 2024.
On 25 March 2024, GS advised that 'NDB has decided not to attend the [Third Hearing] on the basis that [the Private Interpreter] will not be assisting him with translation services on the day. NDB responds well to [the Private Interpreter] and if she is not there to assist him, then we believe he will not receive a fair hearing. Please advise at your earliest convenience if [the Private Interpreter] will be in attendance to assist NDB'.[68]
[68] Letter from GS to Tribunal dated 25 March 2024.
The Tribunal is required to arrange for an independent, impartial interpreter to accurately interpret the evidence of a party who has limited proficiency in English. I was satisfied, and I found, that it was not appropriate that the Private Interpreter interpret for NDB at the Third Hearing because NDB gave evidence at the First Hearing that he signed the EPG 'but it wasn't explained to me what exactly I was signing … but I signed it'.[69]
[69] ts 8, 23 February 2024.
This evidence, whether factually correct or not, has created a conflict of interest between NDB and the Private Interpreter, as she has a vested interest in confirming that she did explain the EPG to NDB, in accordance with her role as interpreter, prior to witnessing his signature on the documents.
I did not allow the Private Interpreter to interpret at the Third Hearing, and NDB did not attend.

Principles to be observed and legislation

The primary concern of the Tribunal in proceedings under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) is the best interests of the proposed represented person, NDB.[70] The Tribunal is required, as far as possible, to ask about his views and wishes.[71] I asked NDB who he wanted to manage his finances and make personal decisions, and he told me he wanted JJ.
[70] GA Act, s 4(2).
[71] GA Act, s 4(7).
The starting point for the Tribunal is that every person is presumed to be capable of looking after their own health and with safety, making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their person, managing their own affairs and making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their estate.[72]
[72] GA Act, s 4(3).
The presumption of capacity is a fundamental principle in the GA Act and can only be displaced by clear and cogent evidence of incapacity leading the Tribunal to be actually persuaded that the person in respect of whom the proceeding is brought is a person for whom a guardianship and an administration order can be made.[73]
[73] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; LP [2020] WASAT 25 at [48]. GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10 at [36].
If the presumption of capacity is set aside, the Tribunal will then decide whether there is a need for a guardianship[74] or administration[75] order, or whether there a less restrictive way for decisions to be made in NDB's best interests.
[74] GA Act, 43(1)(c).
[75] GA Act, s 64(1)(b).
If there is a need for an order, the Tribunal then needs to decide:
(a)the functions or powers of the guardian or administrator;
(b)who the guardian or the administrator should be; and
(c)how long should the order run for before it must be reviewed by the Tribunal.

Evidence and material before the Tribunal

I have had regard to and considered the following documents filed in the proceedings:
(a) enduring power of attorney dated 28 April 2017 jointly and severally appointing RA and JJ;
(b)enduring power of attorney dated 20 February 2024 solely appointing JJ;
(c)enduring power of guardianship dated 20 February 2024 solely appointing JJ;
(d)copies of NDB's wills:
(i)2012 Will;
(ii)2020 Will;
(iii)Unsigned November Will;
(iv)December Will; and
(v)February Will;
(e)letter from Private Interpreter dated 30 January 2024 and various invoices;
(f)Pension Authorisation dated 29 November 2022;
(g)schedule of assets, liabilities, income and expenses prepared by JJ;
(h)schedule of Assets, liabilities, income and expenses prepared by RA;
(i)documents from Hospital J:
(i)discharge summary dated 17 October 2023 when NDB attended with a skin tear on left elbow; and
(ii)discharge summary dated 23 January 2024 and bundle of clinic notes from medical and allied health professionals including social work, occupational therapy and physiotherapy, totalling 56 pages;
(j)service Provider Report dated 25 January 2024 prepared by social worker employed by Hospital J;
(k)discharge summary from Hospital S in respect of presentation to the emergency Department and admission on 11 February 2024;
(l)discharge summary from Hospital O in respect of admission from 12 to 14 February, with clinic notes from physiotherapist and occupational therapist;
(m)letter from Dr C dated 29 November 2023;
(n)medical report prepared by general practitioner Dr O dated 30 January 2024 and a copy of the RUDAS test;
(o)medical report prepared by geriatrician Dr G dated 4 February 2024;
(p)medical report of Dr K dated 22 March 2024 which attached RUDAS test and clinic letter dated 19 March 2024;
(q)photographs of birthday parties and NDB's garden;
(r)report dated 28 March prepared by the Public Trustee following the appointment pursuant to s 65 of the GA Act;
(s)chronology dated 15 February and submissions prepared by RA's solicitor dated 31 January 2024 attaching documents including bank statements, photographs of NDB's home and copies of various Wills;
(t)letters from JJ to the Tribunal dated 23 January and 13 February 2024;
(u)letter from JJ to Dr G dated 17 January 2024;
(v)statement of GS dated 21 February 2024 (GS Statement);
(w)letters from GS in relation to the Private Interpreter dated 27 February, 13 March and 15 March 2024;
(x)letter from Law Firm L to NDB dated 11 March 2024; and
(y)bundle of documents, receipts and invoices filed by JJ pursuant to application made in respect of s 109(1)(a) GA Act.
I also had regard to the oral evidence and submissions given the course of the hearings by each of:
(a)NDB;
(b)JJ;
(c)GS;
(d)RA and his solicitor, Ms Di Martino;
(e)RA's wife MA;
(f)SV;
(g)TW;
(h)GB, JJ's partner;
(i)the Private Interpreter; and
(j)Ms S, the Senior Investigator Advocate from the Office of the Public Advocate.

The test of the capacity to make financial or personal decisions

To appoint an administrator for NDB, I must be satisfied that he is currently unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate.[76]
[76] GA Act, s 64.
This requires that I first consider whether NDB has a mental disability. If so, I then need to be satisfied that the mental disability is the cause of NDB's inability to make reasonable judgments about all or part of his estate.
I can appoint a guardian for NDB if one or more the following criteria apply:
(a)he is incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(b)he is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or
(c)he is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others.[77]
[77] GA Act, s 43(1)(b).
The tests for capacity and the evidence for my findings are discussed in detail below.

Does NDB have a mental disability?

The term 'mental disability' is defined in the GA Act and includes certain conditions such as an intellectual disability, a psychiatric condition, dementia or an acquired brain injury.[78]
[78] GA Act, s 3.
The definition is inclusive rather than exhaustive.[79] As stated by the Full Tribunal in FY:
32… A finding that a person has a 'mental disability' may, of course, be referrable to the existence of one, or a combination of more than one, identified medical conditions. In other cases, the underlying cause of a person's mental disability may not be entirely clear, or susceptible to a particular medical diagnosis, but the existence of the mental disability may be beyond doubt.[80]
[79] FY [2019] WASAT 118 (FY).
[80] FY at [32]

Evidence in relation to mental disability and capacity

Oral evidence of NDB

My observation of NDB during the First Hearing was that it was difficult for the Oncall Interpreter to interpret his evidence as he was repetitive and tangential. Regardless of the specificity of the question I asked, NDB was fixated on explaining to me, and his lengthy responses continued to return to:
(a)the reason why he did not remarry; and
(b)the Property is to be divided so that GS receives one block because he carries NDB's name.
The Oncall Interpreter was summarising his answers until I asked her to interrupt him and interpret to me so I could understand exactly how he was responding to my questions. The Oncall Interpreter said that he would repeat himself and then go back and expand further but he was not able to answer some of my questions.
NDB could not remember attending Law Firm L three days prior to the First Hearing. He also could not remember who took him there or that he signed the EPG. I accept NDB's wish that he genuinely wants JJ to be able to make personal decisions for him, which is the effect of the EPG, but I find that he did not recognise the EPG document when it was shown to him.

Evidence from family

SV gave evidence that she has noticed changes in NDB's behaviour and personality over the last 2 to 3 years.[81] She says that NDB would speak about the present, then talk about the war, and then would talk about his brother that died many decades earlier.[82] TW agreed that NDB would talk about the war and would sometimes 'talk gibberish'.[83]
[81] ts 48, 23 February 2024.
[82] ts 48, 3 February 2024.
[83] ts 49, 23 February 2024.
SV gave an example of how NDB 'goes back and forth… you're talking about something, and he goes back again. And the only focus he has is when you mention his garden … even out there in the garden, he's picking his tomatoes, and he will go, 'Do you know what? My brother, he was so lazy'.[84] SV's description of his 'back and forth' nature is consistent with the experience described by the Oncall Interpreter when interpreting NDB's evidence.
[84] ts 50, 28 March 2024.
RA's view was that NDB had been 'hit and miss' for around 2 years[85] as he would have difficulty focusing and would repeat himself over and over.[86] This is consistent with the responses I received from NDB in the First Hearing.
[85] ts 20, 28 March 2024.
[86] ts 21, 28 March 2024.
MA stated that NDB 'hasn't been with it for years'.[87] TW had noticed changes from around 4 years ago. She said that it was now necessary to converse with him only in a simple way.[88]
[87] ts 51, 28 March 2024.
[88] ts 49, 28 March 2024.
At the Third Hearing once all the evidence had been presented, RA, MA, SV and TW confirmed that their view continued to be that NDB was unable to make his own decisions about finances and personal matters.
JJ also held the view that NDB did not have the capacity to make his own decisions, saying 'I know him, and he – no, he can't … That is my honest answer. He can't'.[89]
[89] ts 49, 28 March 2024.
GS and GB were the only family members that continued to believe, after hearing all the evidence, that NDB was capable of making his own decisions.[90]

RUDAS tests with GPs

[90] ts 42, 28 March 2024.

Dr C met with NDB once on 29 November 2023 and performed a RUDAS test with the assistance of the Private Interpreter. In a letter addressed '[T]o whom it may concern', Dr C stated that she reviewed NDB 'in clinic to assess his cognitive capacity. [A] Rudas was performed, and a score of 23/30 was obtained. This score indicated NDB is of sound mind with normal cognitive function'.
Dr O met with NDB once on 30 January 2024 and performed a RUDAS test with the assistance of the Private Interpreter, with NDB scoring 25/30. Dr O stated, among other things, that NDB did not have a mental disability and that he had the cognitive capacity to make decisions about legal matters and to sign an enduring power of attorney and an enduring power of guardianship.[91]
[91] Medical report filed 30 January 2024.
Dr O said that she was unsure about whether NDB had signed an enduring power of attorney or an enduring power of guardianship, which indicates that neither NDB, JJ or GS raised the fact that the EPA had been in place since 2017. It also suggests that Dr O was not advised that Dr G informed JJ on 12 January 2024 that NDB had a mild cognitive impairment and did 'not have the capacity to sign complex legal documents, regardless of the presence of an interpreter'.[92] This is important context for an assessor of capacity to be aware of.
[92] Handwritten clinic notes filed by Hospital J; notes of intern Dr K made in family meeting.
Even though JJ did not agree with the diagnosis of Dr G and sought further information about the capacity assessment performed on NDB (discussed further below), the information about Dr G's diagnosis should have been provided to Dr O so she was aware of all the relevant information when being asked to assess NDB's capacity to make decisions about financial, legal and personal matters.
In addition to my comments below in respect of the limitations of a cognitive screening tool such as the RUDAS, I find that the fact Dr O was not advised of all the relevant information that was known to JJ and GS when performing her assessment negates any evidentiary value of her assessment of NDB's capacity.

Limitations of screening tools

When considering a person's neurocognitive functioning, there is a hierarchy of sophistication of cognitive tasks ranging from basic functions like coordinating physical movements like buttoning a shirt, through to instrumental functions like mathematical calculations, and then to higher order executive functions like planning and abstract thinking involving complexity and subtlety.
Being able to make a deliberated, informed decision after weighing up the pros and cons of different options, which is the type of decision making that the Tribunal is concerned with, falls into this highest category of executive functions.
A screening tool, such as a RUDAS, is a brief measure of cognition which involves an assessment of orientation, verbal skills, visuospatial skills, memory, attention, and executive functions. Screening tools are useful for assessing the instrumental level of functioning but may fail to adequately capture a person's true cognitive abilities.
The evaluation of someone's judgment in relation to complex matters such as health care and legal matters cannot easily be evaluated in a oneoff appointment in a clinician's office by undertaking a 'pencil and paper' type test.
A detailed assessment by a suitably qualified professional will allow for a more comprehensive and reliable measure of performance and ascertain how certain difficulties may be impacting upon a person's abilities in daily life. While it is unrealistic 'to move in with [someone] for a month and watch how they cope in their daily lives,'[93] the assessment of a person's judgment and vulnerabilities should be based on observation and a review of the outcomes of the person's choices and actions in the real world.
[93] XYZ (Guardianship) [2007] VCAT 1196 (XYZ) at [66].
As discussed below, Dr G did not use a screening tool, and Dr K did. Even though NDB achieved the highest score on the RUDAS undertaken with Dr K, she still deemed him incapable of making decisions about simple and complex financial matters, having borderline capacity to sign an enduring power of attorney and enduring power of guardianship and unable to change his will.
Considering the seriousness of the consequences for a proposed represented person that flow from a finding by the Tribunal of incapacity, or the consequences of the Tribunal failing to identify an incapable person in need of protection, the Tribunal must make findings of fact about capacity by reference to evidence from a wide variety of sources, including the evidence of medical and allied health professionals and also to lay evidence.[94] In addition, the Tribunal may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit,[95]and is not bound by rules of evidence,[96] which ensures, as far as possible that all relevant information can be considered in order to make the correct decision in the best interests of the proposed represented person.

Capacity assessment with geriatrician Dr G

[94] XYZ at [65].

[95] SAT Act, 32(4).

[96] SAT Act, 32(2).

Dr G treated NDB at Hospital J for fifteen days from 8 to 23 January 2024 following his admission for an infected wound on his right shin. Following a capacity assessment conducted on 10 January 2024, Dr G diagnosed NDB with a mild cognitive impairment which was progressive based on his age. She noted that the cognitive impairment was not significantly impacting on his day-to-day life.[97]
[97] Medical report dated 4 February 2024.
In a medical report prepared on 4 February 2024, Dr G said that NDB was capable of making decisions about simple financial matters, as he understands basic calculations and amounts, but he was not capable of making reasonable decisions about complex financial and legal matters. She said that NDB:
… displays poor understanding and knowledge of bank accounts and payments. Complex conversation leads to tangential answers and patient shows difficulty staying focused. Also displays poor retention of information. Assessment was done with an external interpreter. Cognitive deficits continue to be displayed throughout admission affecting the above domains.
Dr G said that NDB did not have the ability to make reasonable judgments in respect of signing documents such as an enduring power of attorney and an enduring power of guardianship, but he was able to sign an advanced health directive. The clinic notes from the assessment detail the conversation between NDB and Dr G around resuscitation, the care provided in an intensive care unit and decisions around end-of-life care.
In terms of his ability to make personal decisions, Dr G said that NDB was able to make decisions about medical treatment as he shows good understanding especially when matters are explained slowly and simply. She said he was able to make decisions about accommodation and services as he understands some of the risks associated with a home discharge.
JJ and GS were critical of Dr G's report as she did not conduct a cognitive screening test on NDB. They were also concerned that NDB was medicated at the time of the assessment, he was being questioned in an unfamiliar environment and no evidence had been provided that an interpreter was present. They questioned whether Dr G's assessment provided a true indication of NDB's cognitive capacity.[98]

Capacity assessment with geriatrician Dr K

[98] Statement filed by GS on 21 February 2024; ts 19, 23 February 2024.

Dr K filed a medical report with the Tribunal dated 22 March 2024 which confirmed the diagnosis of a mild cognitive impairment, which was progressive. Even with the score of 26/30 on the RUDAS, Dr K stated that she was unsure about whether he could make simple financial decisions as while he understands his finances, he requires assistance with managing finances. She said that he was not capable of making decisions about complex financial matters, legal matters and medical treatment procedures.
She said he was able to make decisions about accommodation and services which was consistent with Dr G's report. Dr K said that NDB has borderline capacity to be able to sign an enduring power of attorney and an enduring power of guardianship, and that he would not be able to sign an advanced health directive.
In a letter dated 19 March 2024, Dr K states:
.. NDB is a 102-year-old man with mild cognitive impairment and increasing frailty due to age. He has no capacity to change his Will and he has got borderline capacity of appointing Enduring Power of Attorney, Enduring Power of Guardian due to not understanding the documents but fully understanding his finances and trust his oldest son [JJ] to manage his finances and make a decision about medical condition, living situation and services.[99]
[99] Letter by Dr K dated 19 March 2024.
To clarify, Dr K's opinion is that NDB has borderline capacity to sign:
(a)an enduring power of attorney because she believes that he fully understands his finances which ameliorates the fact that he does not understand the document; and
(b)an enduring power of guardianship because he trusts JJ to make his personal decisions, even though he does not understand the document.
In my discussion with NDB at the First Hearing, he did not know the balance of the Term Deposit, and told me it could be $5,000, $6,000 or $10,000, when in fact it is $32,000. Dr G concluded in her medical report that NDB 'displays poor understanding and knowledge of bank accounts and payments'. The notes from the capacity assessment of 10 January record that NBD had lost track of his finances as JJ handles all of the finances.
On the basis that I am not satisfied on the evidence that NDB fully understands his finances, I do not accept Dr K's evidence that NDB has capacity, borderline or otherwise, to sign an EPA.
In terms of the reasonableness of NDB's trust in JJ to manage his finances and make decisions about medical treatment, living situation and services, I set out my findings in respect of JJ's suitability to make those types of decisions later in these reasons.

Conclusion as to whether NDB has a mental disability

Having regard to the evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, and I find, that the presumption of capacity has been set aside in respect of financial decisions.
I am satisfied that NDB is a person who has a mental disability. The evidence clearly establishes that NDB has a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, originally made by Dr G on 10 January 2024 and confirmed by Dr K on 19 March 2024, both specialist geriatricians.
Dr G opined that the mild cognitive impairment does not significantly impact on NDB's day to day activities, so it is necessary to examine how he has been impacted by the cognitive impairment in the real world by reviewing the outcomes of his choices and actions.

Does the mental disability cause NDB to be unable to make reasonable judgments about his estate?

In terms of what a 'reasonable judgment' is, and what it involves, the Full Tribunal stated in FY:
53… An individual's ability to make reasonable judgments in respect of their estate requires that they have, amongst other things, the ability: to understand the need for, and sources of, income available to them; to understand the value of any income received relative to items of expenditure; to identify and calculate necessary expenditure for day to day living, together with expenditure for longer term financial objectives and discretionary items; to devise a budget so as to be able to live within their means; to identify and to assess the financial implications of particular items of expenditure or of financial decisions (for example whether to enter into contracts such as those for the purchase of a phone, household items, a car, or a house); to organise their affairs so as to be able to meet debts as they fall due; and to identify and implement problem solving strategies for resolving any unexpected financial issues. (My emphasis)[100]

Application to NDB in the 'real world'

[100] FY at [53].

I am satisfied that the mental disability is the cause of NDB's inability to make reasonable judgments in respect of his estate. NDB relies on JJ to pay his bills and buy necessary items. If JJ is not able to do so, such as when he was overseas from 20 June to 12 September 2023, he will arrange for other family members to assist.
NDB is not able to identify and implement problem solving strategies for resolving any unexpected financial issues.He told me that he could use his Term Deposit in the event of an unforeseen expense, but as set out earlier, he has no awareness of the true balance of the Term Deposit.
The evidence is that prior to 2020, NDB was able to manage his finances independently and had savings of around $15,000. In 2020, JJ started assisting NDB with banking and paying bills due to NDB's issues with mobility, rather than NDB being unable to manage it himself due to problems with cognition.
Over time, the mild cognitive impairment has affected NDB to the point where he is now completely reliant on others to manage his finances and he currently does not know the extent of his estate. He does not live within a budget and is not aware of his income as compared to his expenditure.
NDB has allowed JJ to use his pension funds, and has allegedly provided money to M, without being able to recognise or identify the necessary expenditure for day to day living, together with expenditure for longer term financial objectives and discretionary items. The effect is a diminution in NDB's funds which is not in his best interests.

Findings in respect of the Pension Authorisation

I am satisfied, and I find, that the Pension Authorisation signed on 29 November 2023 is evidence of NDB's inability to make reasonable judgments in respect of his estate at that time and for a likely unknown period before then. The cognitive screen performed by Dr C on the same day, after a one-off meeting, is not a comprehensive or reliable measure of NDB's performance or judgment, as it is not based on observation or review of the outcomes of NDB's choices and actions in the real world. It did not assess his vulnerability in respect of the management of his finances, his lack of awareness of his estate or his problem-solving ability in respect of unforeseen expenses.
The Pension Authorisation was signed only six weeks before Dr G diagnosed the mild cognitive impairment, although the balance of NDB's bank account #3205 had been in steady decline from around August 2020 when JJ became involved in managing NDB's finances. As set out above, when NDB was managing his own finances, he had a surplus of around $15,000 in savings in 2020.
The bank statements filed with the Tribunal show the balance of the account was hovering at an average of around $12,000 in March 2021 and was down to around $10,000 or below by August 2021. By July 2022, NDB's account was consistently down to around $8,000. By February 2023, the balance was down to an average of around $7,000.
On 12 June 2023, just prior to JJ leaving for a three-month overseas holiday, the balance of the account was $22. There were no withdrawals from the account while JJ was overseas and as at 1 September 2023, just prior to JJ's return, the balance was $7,037. By November 2023, the balance of the account was down to an average of around $3,000 to $4,000.
I am satisfied that the decreasing balance of NDB's bank account is evidence that NDB's funds were not managed in his best interests for at least a few years prior to the Pension Authorisation being signed. I find that NDB's ratification of the use of his funds through signing the Pension Authorisation in November 2023 was not a reasonable decision being made by a person who was able to competently manage their finances and plan for future expenses.

Finding in respect of the changing terms of the wills

In terms of making reasonable decisions when signing legal documents, the wills NDB signed in 2012, 2020 and December 2023 involve the estate being divided equally, first between his four children, and then with the equal division including GS as at December 2023.
However, the November and February Wills contain significantly different terms to the earlier wills. I am satisfied that the significant departure from NDB's long held wishes in respect to how his estate is to be divided is further evidence of his inability to make reasonable judgments about his estate at that time.
NDB told me three times during the First Hearing that the reason he did not remarry following the passing of his wife in the mid-1980s was because he did not want a new wife to interfere with the inheritance that he would leave to his four children. The introduction of a subdivision of the Property and the overall gifting to GS of 50% of the Property is contrary to those long held wishes.
I have no doubt that NDB is extremely fond of his grandson, but to make such a gift to GS at the expense of JJ, RA, SV and TW(and to exclude all other grandchildren) is difficult to understand in the context of a man who made a conscious decision about remarriage in the 1980s to ensure that each of his children would receive a 25% share of the Property. The November and February Wills provides that RA, SV and TW would each receive 16.7% of the Property, and JJ would receive zero. I am therefore satisfied, and I find, that the change in the terms of his wills from 2012 to 2024 is evidence of NDB's progressive inability to make reasonable judgments in respect of his estate.

When did the mental disability cause NDB to be incapable?

Taking into account the observations of his family, a review of the evidence of medical and allied health professionals, and an analysis of how his choices and actions have affected him in the real world over the last 12 years, I find that the impairment in NDB's judgment and the difficulties caused by the progression of the mild cognitive impairment are illustrated in the following timeline:
(a)the 2012 Will gifted his estate equally to his four children. The 2020 Will is consistent and appointed JJ and RA as his executors. The steady decline in his bank account began in late 2020;
(b)consistent anecdotal evidence from RA, MA, SV and TW refers to a reduction in NBD's capacity and focus from at least around early 2022;
(c)discussions occurred in June 2023 about M financially exploiting NDB. NDB acted inconsistently by responding in anger to comments made by RA and ordering him off his Property, and separately telling SV that M was just a friend. The balance of his bank account was $22;
(d)SV observed that NDB was becoming increasingly aggressive and angry from September 2023 and expressed a new belief that there was a law that required him to leave some of his land to the grandson that carries his name;
(e)in November 2023, NDB signed the Pension Authorisation that is against his interests and the November Will that runs contrary to his historic views and wishes held for 40 years;
(f)in December 2023, NDB initially denied to RA that he had signed a new will. Following a discussion and the realisation that the division was not equal and JJ was not included, NDB signed the December Will with a five way equal division;
(g)the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment was made on 10 January 2024 by specialist geriatrician Dr G;
(h)a further four day hospitalisation in respect of pneumonia occurred shortly thereafter where the occupational therapist at Hospital O noted a 'possible cognitive impairment' on 13 February 2024 when assessing his 'current function';[101]
(i)NDB signed an even more complicated will in late February 2024, again contrary to his long-held wishes, removing his sons as executors and appointing GS in that role, in addition to gifting 50% of his estate to GS;
(j)NDB gave oral evidence at the Tribunal that he did not remember attending the offices of Law Firm L three days earlier or who took him there;
(k)the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment was confirmed by Dr K on 19 March 2024; and
(l)by 28 March 2024, all members of his family agreed that he is unable to make reasonable decisions about his finances and personal matters, except for GS and GB.
[101] Clinic notes filed by Hospital O.
I am satisfied, and I find on the evidence before me, that NDB has experienced a gradual decline in cognition as a result of the mental disability, which progressed to NDB becoming completely incapable of making reasonable judgments in respect of his estate by June 2023.
I am satisfied, and I find, that a further example of NDB's vulnerability and the impairment in his judgment is the gifting of the Centenarian Communications to GS in the February Will. NDB has an egalitarian nature, evidenced by his wishes in the 2012 and 2020 Wills, so it is difficult to understand why all five communications, of such significant historic family value, would be gifted to one grandchild to the exclusion of his four children were it not for the presence of the cognitive impairment.
I will next explain why I am satisfied that NDB is in need of an administrator of his estate.

Is there a need for an administration order or is there a less restrictive option?

Before making an order, the Tribunal must examine whether there is any another option available for decisions to be made in NDB's best interests that is less restrictive on his freedom of decision and action.[102]
[102] GA Act, s 4(6).
In this matter, a less restrictive option would be either the EPA or the 2024 EPA, as NDB has chosen who he would like to make his financial decisions. It is therefore necessary for the Tribunal to decide whether or not the EPA or the 2024 EPA is an appropriate way for decisions to be made in NDB's best interests.
The EPA creates a joint and several appointment. JJ and RA are unable to communicate due to an entrenched conflict, so if the EPA stands, RA will be liable for the decisions and actions taken by JJ. It is therefore necessary that the EPA be revoked, and I will make such an order.
In relation to the 2024 EPA, I am not satisfied that NDB had capacity to sign it, so I will revoke it for that reason. In the event that NDB appointed JJ as his sole attorney when he had capacity, I am not satisfied that JJ is able to exercise his powers as attorney with reasonable diligence to protect NDB's interests.[103] While acting pursuant to the EPA, JJ used NDB's funds for his own benefit and has caused a detriment to NDB's estate.
[103] GA Act, s 107(1)(a).
I am also not satisfied that JJ would keep and preserve accurate records and accounts of all dealings and transactions made under the power,[104] as he did not do this in respect of the EPA as evidenced by the 'shoe box' of documents filed with the Tribunal.
[104] GA Act, s 107(1)(b).
Accordingly, there is a need for the Tribunal to make an administration order.

Suitability of proposed administrator

JJ and GS have proposed themselves as NDB's administrator. I find that JJ and GS are over the age of 18 and have consented to act.[105] No other family member proposed themselves for nomination and have expressed support for the appointment of the Public Trustee due to the family conflict.
[105] GA Act, s 68(1).
When considering the appointment, the Tribunal must hold the opinion that any proposed administrator will act in the best interests of NDB[106] and is suitable to act as the administrator of the estate.[107] When assessing suitability, the Tribunal must take into account the compatibility between the guardian and administrator, if any,[108] the wishes of the person concerned,[109] and whether the proposed administrator will be able to perform the functions vested in them.[110]
[106] GA Act, s 68(1)(c).
[107] GA Act, s 68(1)(d).
[108] GA Act, s 68(3)(a).
[109] GA Act, s 68(3)(b).
[110] GA Act, s 68(3)(c).
NDB clearly expressed to me at the First Hearing that he wanted JJ to manage his finances.

Best interests and suitability of JJ and GS to act as administrator

I am not satisfied JJ will act in NDB's best interests for three reasons. First, while EPA, JJ used NDB's funds for his own benefit and was unable to separate out his own interests from NDB's best interests, which was to save money for future expenditure. As the mild cognitive impairment progressed over time, NDB became completely reliant on JJ to diligently manage his finances using the EPA, which JJ failed to do.
Second, JJ took no action to stop the alleged ongoing financial exploitation by M. JJ reported that M was taking around 50% of NDB's pension, but sometimes up to $1,000 per fortnight. JJ's view is that it was NDB's money, so he can spend it as he likes.[111] I asked JJ how long this had been occurring, and he said:

40 years. Yes. It's a lot of money. And well, my brother knows about this and this is the reason why he confronted dad twice and my dad ordered him out of the house for that reason, because he was trying to tell dad what to do with his money. This is the problem here.
[111] ts 13, 23 February 2024.

I note that both JJ and GS were critical of RA's attempts to 'confront' NDB and address the concerns about financial exploitation. I find that RA was acting protectively in NDB's best interests at great personal cost as his relationship with NDB was significantly harmed. GS gave evidence that NDB ordered RA off his property and did not see him for months.[112]
[112] ts 12, 23 February 2024.
Third, JJ lacks insight into the reasons for the applications to the Tribunal, being the genuine concerns held by the family about NDB's capacity and welfare. As reflected in the quote above, JJ has continued to frame the applications as an exercise by his siblings to claw back their inheritance, and to tell their father what he should spend his money on, rather than objectively considering whether recent decisions have been made in NDB's best interests.
I find that both JJ and GS are jointly unable to act in NDB's best interests for a further two reasons. First, JJ and GS facilitated NDB engaging a new solicitor to prepare the documents in February 2024 rather than attend Law Firm H, who had been NDB's solicitors since at least 2017. Solicitor H acted protectively towards NDB by advising RA, as the joint attorney, about the November Will. JJ's attitude of 'when you make a will, you don't share it around'[113] deprived NDB of the oversight and protection of his long-term legal adviser, Solicitor H, which was not in his best interests.
[113] ts 16, 23 February 2024.
Second, the lack of insight shown by JJ and GS in having the February Will, 2024 EPA and EPG signed three days prior to the First Hearing when they say they were acting on NDB's instructions.[114] NDB has incurred significant costs in respect of the preparation of these documents in circumstances where Dr G advised JJ on 12 January 2024 that NDB was unable to sign legal documents, regardless of the presence of an interpreter.
[114] ts 30, 23 February 2024.
JJ and GS received legal advice from Law Firm FM on 29 January 2024 in order to understand the Tribunal proceedings.[115] It can therefore be expected that they were aware of the scope of the applications and the detailed consideration that would be undertaken by the Tribunal in relation to NDB's capacity to make reasonable decisions.
[115] ts 47, 28 March 2024.
Finally, I am not satisfied that GS is solely able to act in NDB's best interests for a further two reasons. First, GS is unable to separate his own interests from NDB's best interests. The November 2023 and February 2024 Wills bestowed a substantial gift on GS, which was a significant departure from NDB's long held wishes. The November 2023 and February 2024 Wills also excluded JJ from receiving a gift from NDB.
Despite concerns about NDB's capacity and the evidence provided by Dr G to the family on 12 January 2024, rather than critically examining that information and exercising caution in his grandfather's best interests, GS arranged the further capacity assessment by Dr O on 30 January 2024. I find that GS facilitated NDB's attendance on Law Firm L to have the February Will prepared so that RA, SV and TW would not be aware of the change to their father's will until after the February Will was signed, appointing him as executor and securing a substantial gift for himself.
Second, GS continues to believe that NDB is capable of making his own decisions, even when presented with the reports of two geriatricians that say otherwise and the agreement of all the other family members including JJ. This means that GS lacks an understanding of NDB's limitations and may continue to act on his instructions. The risk is that GS will be unable to act in an appropriately protective manner to protect NDB from financial abuse and exploitation.[116]
[116] GA Act, s 70(2)(d).
An example of acting on NDB's instructions which are against his interests when he lacks the capacity to give those instructions is NDB's reported position that he should be responsible for all costs relating to the Tribunal proceedings. JJ reported that NDB stated 'I'm paying for it. Because you should not take money out of your pocket … I said, 'Well, if you're willing to do that, we will take it out of your money'.[117]
[117] ts 46, 28 March 2024.
The costs of the proceedings facilitated by JJ and GS and incurred by NDB include:
(a)Uber to and from the Tribunal for GS to review the documents - $29 in and $33 back;
(b)Uber to and from the First Hearing for NDB, GS, JJ and GB of $44 in and $56 back;
(c)$495 for legal advice from Law Firm FM on 29 February 2024 plus the cost of the Uber ride of $16; and
(d)$482 for the cost of the transcript of the First Hearing.
After the Public Trustee was appointed as NDB's emergency administrator, GS submitted a bundle of invoices for reimbursement, including for the legal advice and transcript. The Public Trustee rejected those requests on the basis that the expenses were not requested or received by NDB, and rather, the advice was preliminary advice provided to JJ and GS.[118]
[118] GA Act, s 72.
GS expressed the view at the Third Hearing is 'it's fair and reasonable for NDB to pay for these two invoices …. we wanted to be brought up to speed, in a sense, about what this is about and what and how best to fight it'.[119] GS advised that he was continuing to correspond with the Public Trustee in order to claim reimbursement of these costs from NDB.[120]
[119] ts 47, 28 March 2024.
[120] ts 47, 28 March 2024.
When I asked JJ if he thought it was appropriate that NDB pay for the transcript on the basis that he would not be the person reading it, JJ said:[121]

JJ:     … We will read it to him. … But what I'm saying – his idea is that we're fighting here for his property. So he says, "Why should you …"
GS:     Not for his property.
JJ:     No, for – the whole thing is this all come out when my dad decide to put [GS] on the land. When my dad decided to put [GS] on a third of the land, the bubble burst… And this is why dad said, "Listen, we are fighting for this block. All of it comes out of this land. So you're not forking out money for nothing". At the end of the day, [RA, SV and TW] will be profiting from it. He says, "Whatever is happening about this land, it comes out of this land".
[121] ts 46, 28 March 2024.

NDB has incurred other significant costs as a result of the arrangements made by JJ and GS from late November to late February including the costs Law Firm L,[122] Law Firm H[123] and the multiple attendances of the Private Interpreter.
[122] $660 as per the Public Trustee report.
[123] $485 as per documents filed by JJ.

Conclusion on suitability of JJ and GS to act as administrator

Because I am satisfied that JJ and GS are unable to act in NDB's best interests, it is not necessary that I examine the other aspects of JJ and GS's suitability to act as NDB's administrator. I am satisfied, and I find, that the only option open to the Tribunal is to appoint the Public Trustee as NDB's plenary administrator. I am therefore unable to follow NDB's wish for JJ to manage his finances.

Evidence in respect of capacity to make personal decisions

Capacity to make decisions about medical treatment and procedures

Dr G's view is that NDB is able to make medical treatment decisions and to sign an advanced health directive. Her assessment of NDB involved detailed questions about, and his views and wishes in respect of, end of life care. Dr K concluded that NDB was not able to make decisions about medical treatment.
I prefer the opinion of Dr K as the evidence demonstrates, in a real world sense, and I find, that NDB is not capable of making reasonable decisions in order to look after or monitor his health, thus placing himself in grave danger. I find that NDB is unable to recognise when to seek medical treatment, and it is not until the situation has become dire that emergency treatment is sought.
In addition to the seriousness of constipation, NDB's recurring issue with wound management and the recent diagnosis of pneumonia have both required intravenous antibiotics and extended hospitalisation for between four and fifteen days. NDB has developed complications, including a kidney injury and atrial fibrillation, as a result of the pneumonia.

Capacity to make decisions about accommodation

Both Dr G and Dr K conclude that NDB has the capacity to make reasonable decisions about accommodation and services. However, I share the concerns of RA in terms of the safety and trip hazards at NDB's home, evidenced by the photographs filed by RA.
The evidence from the majority of NDB's family is that they do not want NDB to ever have to move from the Property and his garden. It is unlikely that he would want to leave his home of over 60 years. I therefore find that NDB would be unable to make a reasonable judgment about accommodation as he would be unable to recognise when it became unsafe for him to continue to live at the Property. He would also be unable to independently identify or source another type of accommodation if it was required.

Capacity to make decisions about services

The evidence before me is that the family have previously refused an Aged Care Assessment Team assessment. I find that NDB would not be able to make a reasonable judgment in respect of identifying or arranging the services he would require to continue to live independently. NDB's large family have assisted as required for a number of years, without NDB having to consciously make that decision for himself.

Conclusion on capacity to make personal decisions

On the basis of the views of the professionals as set out in the filed documents and evidence given by the family at the hearings, there is ample evidence that persuades me that that the presumption of capacity has been set aside in respect of making personal decisions.
I am satisfied and I find that NBD is incapable of looking after his own health and safety. He needs assistance with purchasing food, personal items and groceries, and arranging services such as a podiatrist.[124] He is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of his person. He is unable to recognise when to seek medical advice, which has resulted in repeated hospitalisations in 2024.
[124] These were the tasks GS assisted NDB with when JJ was away from June to September 2023, and that BG assists with, as per letters from JJ to the Tribunal dated 23 January and 13 February 2024.
NDB is in need of supervision and oversight in order to protect his health and safety, particularly around managing his health and the risk of falls in his home. NDB dismisses concerns about his safety, such as in respect of the mat in his bedroom which is a trip hazard, as he does not want to move it.[125] It has been recommended that he use a walking stick outside, but he has refused.[126] He has had at least four falls in the last 12 months.
[125] Clinic notes from physiotherapist from Hospital O following visit on 19 February 2024.
[126] Clinic notes from physiotherapist from Hospital O following visit on 19 February 2024.

Is there a need for a guardianship order or is there a less restrictive option?

The informal arrangements that were in place, with JJ assisting and caring for NDB, are no longer working in NDB's best interests due to the family conflict. RA, MA, SV and TW were not told about NDB's hospitalisation in February 2024, and they say they are unable to visit his home to see him. They have not spent time with him since 23 January 2024.
I am not satisfied that NDB had capacity to sign the EPG and I will revoke it on that basis, which means that there is a need for a guardianship order.
I will first discuss each proposed function of the guardian.

Functions of guardian required

Medical treatment and procedures

NDB requires a medical treatment guardian to give informed consent to medical treatment and procedures as required, and to arrange for him to see a regular GP on a regular basis to monitor his health. A medical treatment guardian would also ensure that all family members were kept updated about NDB's health and notified about any further admissions to hospital. If NDB was nearing the end of his life, the guardian would ensure that all family members would be told and have the opportunity to say goodbye, when that time came.

Contact

RA, SV and TW advise that they are unable to visit NDB at home because they are fearful of a further altercation with JJ. Due to the open hostility I observed in the hearings, I find that there is a high possibility of conflict, verbal or otherwise, if JJ and GS on the one hand, are present at the Property when any of RA, MA, SV or TW attempt to visit.
NDB therefore requires his guardian to make decisions about who he will have contact with, and the extent of that contact, to ensure that he is able to maintain supportive, meaningful relationships with all members of his family in his advancing years.

Accommodation and services

Due to the majority of the family's stated beliefs around NDB continuing to live at home, it may be emotionally difficult for any family member to determine if it was unsafe for NDB to continue to live in at the Property and implement a decision to move NDB.
In order for NDB to continue to live independently, he requires assistance, either from family or through formal services. If it is necessary to engage formal services, it is necessary that the guardian have a services function.

Conclusion on functions of guardian

I therefore find that NDB requires a limited guardian to make decisions about medical treatment, contact, accommodation and services.

Suitability of proposed guardians

When considering the appointment of a guardian, the Tribunal must hold the opinion that the proposed guardian will act in the best interests of the person, is suitable to act as the guardian,[127] is not in a position where their interests' conflict or may conflict with NDB's interests[128] and that the proposed guardian will be able to perform functions vested in them.[129]
[127] GA Act, s 44(1)(a).
[128] GA Act, s 44(1)(c).
[129] GA Act, s 44(1)(b).
NDB clearly expressed to me at the First Hearing that he wanted JJ to make his personal decisions.
JJ and GS have proposed themselves as NDB's guardian. I find that they are both over the age of 18 and have consented to act.[130] None of the other family members are proposing themselves for nomination due to the family conflict and a belief that it would not be in NDB's best interests for family to be appointed as guardian.
[130] GA Act, s 44(2)(d).
When NDB was admitted to Hospitals S and O in February 2024, JJ and GS did not tell the other family members on the basis that that NDB said that he did not want them to.[131] JJ's view was that he should not do something that NDB was unhappy with, and JJ did not want to argue with him.[132]
[131] ts 27-28, 23 February 2024.
[132] GA Act, s 44(1).
In addition, JJ stated that he was not going to take any action to monitor NDB's health apart from visiting him every day. Because NDB had completely recovered in JJ's view, JJ stated that was that it was not necessary to see a GP on an ongoing basis.[133] GS appeared to accept this view.
[133] ts 27, 23 February 2024.
I find that JJ and GS are unsuitable to act as medical treatment, services and accommodation guardians as they are not able to make decisions in NDB's best interests that he may not agree with, such as when they chose not to notify the family that NDB was admitted to Hospitals S and O in February. They also lack insight into the need for the ongoing, regular management and review of NDB's health in circumstances where his is 102 years old. NDB's medical conditions could have been far more carefully managed and the lengthy hospitalisations in 2024 likely avoided.
Ms S, the representative from the Office of the Public Advocate (Public Advocate) observed that the conflict within the family was exceptionally clear as evidenced by the behaviour of the family she witnessed at the Third Hearing. I can confirm that the behaviour at the First Hearing was disappointingly similar.
Due to the degree of conflict within the family, it is not appropriate that a family member act as NDB's guardian to make decisions about any of the functions identified, particularly contact. I find that JJ and GS are also unsuitable to be NDB's contact guardian on the basis of the family conflict.
As the people willing to be appointed as guardian have been found to be unsuitable, the only option open to the Tribunal is to appoint the Public Advocate to be NDB's limited guardian. I am therefore unable to follow NDB's wish for JJ to make his personal decisions for him.

How long should the order run for before it must be reviewed?

When making orders, the Tribunal is required to fix a period for the review of the order. The medical evidence is clear that NDB has a progressive cognitive impairment such that his incapacity and need for a guardian and administrator will be lifelong.
In light of the animosity and distrust between the family members, which currently precludes them from being appointed, it is not in NDB's best interests to subject him to a further hearing any earlier than necessary. Therefore, these orders are to be reviewed within the maximum term possible which is within 5 years of the date of the orders.

Orders

GAA/173/2024
The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [NDB], is:
(a)unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of his estate; and
(b)in need of an administrator of his estate.
(c)incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(d)unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(e)in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety; and
(f)in need of a guardian.
The Tribunal orders:

Administration
1.The order made on 23 February 2024 pursuant to s 65 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) is revoked.
2.The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the represented person's estate
3.The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $1,200 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.
4.The enduring power of attorney dated 28 April 2017 by which the represented person appointed [RO] and [JJ] to be their attorney, is revoked.
5.The enduring power of attorney dated 20 February 2024 by which the represented person appointed [JJ] to be their attorney, is revoked.
6.The Public Trustee is to be provided with copies of all documents on files GAA/173/2024, GAA/178/2024 and GAA/967/2024.
7.The administration order is to be reviewed by 18 April 2029.

Guardianship
8.The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:
(a)to decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;
(b)to decide with whom the represented person is to live;
(c)to make treatment decisions for the represented person, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA);
(d)to determine what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact; and
(e)to determine the services to which the represented person should have access.

9.The Tribunal approves delegation by the Public Advocate of her functions as guardian of the represented person to an officer or employee employed in the Office of the Public Advocate.
10.The guardianship order is to be reviewed by 18 April 2029.

GAA/178/2024
The Tribunal orders:
1.The application is dismissed.

GAA/967/2024
The Tribunal notes:
1.The represented person signed an enduring power of guardianship on 20 February 2024 appointing [JJ] as his enduring guardian.
The Tribunal orders:
2.The enduring power of guardianship is revoked.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
24 APRIL 2024