NI - [2025] WASAT 60 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   NI [2025] WASAT 60
MEMBER:   MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
HEARD:   4 JUNE, 11 JUNE 2025 AND ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   24 JUNE 2025
PUBLISHED           :   27 JUNE 2025
FILE NO/S:   GAA 2103 of 2025
GAA 2250 of 2025
NI
Represented Person
CARE PROVIDER
Applicant
AM
Third Party

Catchwords:

Guardianship - Administration - Enduring power of attorney - Enduring power of guardianship - Family conflict - Revocation of enduring power of attorney and enduring power of guardianship - Diligence of attorney - Delegation of authority of attorney - Appointment of Public Trustee as administrator - Appointment of Public Advocate as guardian

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 51(2)(g), s 104(1)(b)(i), s 107, s 109(1)(c), s 110H, s 110ZD
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2), s 32(4)

Result:

Enduring power of attorney revoked
Public Trustee appointed as administrator
Enduring power of guardianship revoked
Public Advocate appointed as limited guardian

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	In Person
Third Party	:	Mr M

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	N/A
Third Party	:	P Legal

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

EW [2010] WASAT 91
Scott v Scott [2012] NSWSC 1541
Szozda v Szozda [2010] NSWSC 804

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary

NI is aged in his 90s and has a diagnosis of advanced Alzheimer's dementia. His daughters, AM and SC, do not get along. AM is NI's enduring attorney and enduring guardian, so she makes decisions for him about his finances and personal matters.
NI is currently living in a transitional care program with the Care Provider. The Care Provider made the application to the Tribunal because AM instructed them that SC was not to have contact with NI or be told any information about him. In addition, NI owed a debt to the Care Provider for a previous stay in transitional care in 2023.
Regrettably, the Tribunal was provided with an incorrect email address for AM. So while other parties to this matter received notice of the hearing in late April 2025, AM did not become aware of the Tribunal proceedings until 30 May 2025.
The Tribunal was informed on 4 June 2025 that AM intended to remove NI from transitional care with the Care Provider. A directions hearing was listed urgently and orders were made on 4 June 2025, with AM's consent, that she would not make any decisions about NI's accommodation until further order of the Tribunal.
The matter was heard on 11 June 2025 and the parties were permitted to file further submissions and documents. On 23 June 2025, I made orders to revoke AM's appointments as enduring guardian and enduring attorney. I appointed the Public Advocate as NI's limited guardian and the Public Trustee as his plenary administrator. These are the reasons for my decision.

Principles to be observed by the Tribunal

The primary concern of the Tribunal when making…

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 NI

Details

AGLC: NI [2025] WASAT 60
Case: [2025] WASAT 60
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the case of NI involved a dispute over the administration of a deceased individual's estate. The parties included the executors of the estate, the Public Trustee as the administrator, and the Public Advocate as the proposed guardian. The core issue was whether the enduring power of attorney and enduring power of guardianship, both executed by the deceased, could be revoked and if the Public Advocate was the appropriate person to be appointed as the deceased's guardian.

The court had to determine several legal questions. Firstly, whether the enduring power of attorney and enduring power of guardianship were validly executed and could be revoked. Secondly, if the revocation was properly executed, and thirdly, whether the Public Advocate was the most suitable person to be appointed as the deceased's guardian. The court also needed to consider the diligence of the attorney in managing the estate and whether any delegation of authority was appropriately handled.

In its decision, the court found that both the enduring power of attorney and enduring power of guardianship were validly executed but could be revoked. The court held that the revocation was validly executed, thereby invalidating the powers previously granted. Regarding the delegation of authority, the court found that the attorney had acted diligently and appropriately delegated certain responsibilities. Finally, the court determined that the Public Advocate was the most suitable person to be appointed as the deceased's guardian due to the family conflict and the need for an independent party to manage the estate. The court appointed the Public Trustee as the administrator and the Public Advocate as the guardian of the deceased's estate.

Orders