NP
[2024] WASAT 53
•27 MAY 2024
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION: NP [2024] WASAT 53
MEMBER: MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
HEARD: 20 MAY 2024
DELIVERED : 20 MAY 2024
PUBLISHED : 27 MAY 2024
FILE NO/S: GAA 1171 of 2024
NP
Represented Person
SP
Applicant
Catchwords:
Review of guardianship and administration orders – Reasons to allow review – Family conflict – Conflict of interest – Threat of legal proceedings against represented person – Specific performance of alleged agreement reached with represented person – Transactions may be set aside – Applicant for review unsuitable for appointment – Public Trustee reappointed – Public Advocate reappointed – Private medical treatment guardian reappointed – Duration of orders five years
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(4), 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)(b), s 44(2)(d), s 44(5), s 64(1)(a), s 61(1)(b), s 68(1), s 68(1)(c), s 68(1)(d), s 68(3)(a), s 68(3)(b), s 68(3)(c), s 82(1), s 82(3), s 84, s 87
Result:
Public Trustee reappointed plenary administrator
Public Advocate reappointed as limited guardian
Private guardian appointed for medical treatment function
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Represented Person | : | In Person |
| Applicant | : | In Person |
Solicitors:
| Represented Person | : | N/A |
| Applicant | : | N/A |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10
LP [2020] WASAT 25
RK [2022] WASAT 112
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
(These are the reasons for decision delivered on 20 May 2024 and have been taken from the transcript, edited only to anonymise parties, to add relevant authorities, legislation and headings, correct grammatical errors and some infelicity of expression, without variation to the substance thereof.)
Introduction
NP will turn 96 years old on 1 June 2024. She has been living in residential aged care since December 2023 (Aged Care), with the placement starting as respite and becoming permanent in February 2024. NP has three sons:
(a)SP, who is the applicant in this matter. SP is seeking a review of the current guardianship and administration orders dated 29 September 2023 (Orders);
(b)PP who is her current medical treatment guardian; and
(c)TP.
In addition to appointing PP as the medical treatment guardian, the Orders appointed:
(a)the Office of the Public Trustee (Public Trustee) as NP's plenary administrator; and
(b)the Office of the Public Advocate (Public Advocate) as NP's limited guardian with the functions of accommodation, services and contact.
The Orders were due to be reviewed by 29 September 2024.
All NP's sons attended the hearing of 20 May 2024 (Hearing) in person. NP also has a daughter who has health issues and has not attended any of the hearings at the Tribunal.[1] NP attended the Hearing in person and was assisted by a translator in her first language. Also attending in person were SP's son MP, SP's partner MM and NP's delegated guardian (Delegated Guardian) from the Public Advocate's office.
[1] The first hearing occurred on 29 September 2023. The second/review hearing occurred on 20 May 2024.
NP told me at the Hearing that she wants to return to live in her home (Home) as she is unhappy living in Aged Care. SP says that NP has not adjusted to living in Aged Care and her health and mental state have deteriorated. SP says that NP cries every day as she wants to return to live at her Home with SP, MM and MP to care for her.[2]
[2] SP Submissions filed 17 and 19 March 2024.
SP is seeking the review of the Orders pursuant to s 87 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) which states:
(1)Any person may request the State Administrative Tribunal for leave to apply for the review of a guardianship order or an administration order.
[(2), (3) deleted]
(4)The person making the request shall state his reasons for the request at his option —
(a)in writing;
(b)orally in an appearance before the State Administrative Tribunal; or
(c)partly in writing and partly orally.
(5)The State Administrative Tribunal may —
(a)refuse the request; or
(b)if it is satisfied that because of a change of circumstances or for any other reason a review should be held, grant, either unconditionally or subject to any condition, leave to the person to apply for the review.
SP has proposed that he be appointed as NP's guardian and administrator. SP intends for he and his family to live at NP's Home with her to provide all the care she requires.[3] This would mean that there would then be no need to sell her Home, as NP's trust manager at the Public Trustee (Trust Manager) is in the process of arranging to sell her Home to pay the refundable accommodation deposit (RAD) for the Aged Care facility.[4]
[3] SP Submissions filed 17 March 2024.
[4] Report prepared by the Trust Manager from the Public Trustee dated 14 May 2024 (PT Report).
The Delegated Guardian advised NP's sons that NP was unable to be cared for in her Home until the serious conflict amongst her sons was resolved.[5] The Delegated Guardian's view was that SP's 'previous attempt to move into his mother's home [in August 2023] and care for her had ended disastrously due to the intensity of this conflict',[6] particularly between SP and PP. The Delegated Guardian advised that correspondence received from SP 'indicates that [he] hopes to benefit financially if his mother were to return home and he and his family were to move in to care for her'.[7]
[5] Report prepared by Delegated Guardian dated 10 May 2024 (OPA report), page 3.
[6] OPA report dated 10 May 2024, page 3.
[7] OPA report dated 10 May 2024, page 3. This is a reference to the email dated 13 February 2024 from SP to the Delegated Guardian and copied to the Trust Manager (Email).
NP has a diagnosis of moderately severe dementia with the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD).[8] The view of her general practitioner (GP) of 36 years, Dr R, is that she does not have the capacity to make reasonable judgments about her financial, legal, or personal matters.
[8] Medical report dated 25 August 2023 by Dr R.
First application and hearing at the Tribunal – September 2023
The first application was filed by NP's home care provider seeking the appointment of a guardian and an administrator for NP due to the conflict between her sons and the concerns about the level of care she was receiving while living at Home.[9]
[9] The first application was filed on 23 August 2023.
NP's financial affairs were previously managed by PP pursuant to an enduring power of attorney dated 6 December 2018 (EPA). SP arranged for NP to revoke the EPA in May 2023. Following a physical altercation at the Home, interim family violence restraining orders was sought by PP (FVROs).[10] The FVROs were later settled by way of an undertaking, but it was clear to me at the Hearing (some eight months later) that the conflict between SP on the one hand, and PP and TP on the other, is ongoing and has only intensified.
[10] The persons bound were SP and MP.
Due to the family conflict, the only option that was open to the Tribunal in September 2023 was to make public appointments, save for appointing PP as NP's medical treatment guardian.
Leave must be granted for the review to occur
The first issue to deal with is whether to grant leave for the review to occur pursuant to s 87 of the GA Act. As set out in s 87(5) of the GA Act, the Tribunal may refuse the request for a review or may grant leave for the review if the Tribunal is satisfied that a review should be held because of a change in circumstances or for any other reason.
There are three reasons for the requirement of a change in circumstances or any other reason for leave to be granted.[11] The first is that because an application to review orders is likely to be a cause of anxiety and disruption for the represented person, people who are not directly affected by the orders should not be permitted to seek a review of those orders as of right.[12]
[11] RK [2022] WASAT 112 (RK).
[12] RK at [38].
Secondly, when making orders, the Tribunal is expressly required to fix a period within which the review of the order should occur.[13] When I pronounced the Orders in September 2023, I set a review period for one year, rather than the maximum of five years, because the significant conflict in the family meant that public appointments were the only feasible option at that time. There was a possibility that if the contentious issues could be resolved with decisions being made by the Public Trustee and the Public Advocate for one year, there could be scope for family members to be appointed as guardian or administrator at the periodic review. As I had set the review date for one year, I would only allow the Orders to be reviewed earlier if there was a good reason for doing so.
[13] RK at [39].
Thirdly, if a person is relying on a change of circumstances, the Tribunal must make a comparison between the circumstances in existence at the time the challenged decision was made and those in existence at the time of the application for leave to review.[14]
[14] RK at [41].
I am satisfied that it is in NP's best interests that I allow the review to occur on the basis of the new information that is set out in SP's email of 13 February 2024 (Email) addressed to the Delegated Guardian and copied to the Trust Manager. This email raises a significant conflict of interest between SP and NP. The Email states that SP was considering the option of seeking a 'legal remedy' against NP, such as specific performance of the alleged agreement that she would transfer her Home to him. This is a change in circumstances.
I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to allow the review on the basis that the Orders are due to be reviewed by 29 September 2024, which is in four months' time. I find that it is in NP's best interests that she does not have to attend a further Tribunal hearing in such a short period of time.
I note that the main reason the review was sought by SP was because he was unhappy with the decision of the Delegated Guardian to move NP into Aged Care. I explained that the role of the Tribunal is to appoint the substitute decision-maker, not to become involved in specific decisions made by the substitute decision-maker. The concerns about NP's decline in health since living in Aged Care were discussed in detail in the Hearing, as were SP's concerns about the conduct of the Delegated Guardian.
As I decided to grant leave for the review of the Orders, the review hearing occurred on 20 May 2024.
Principles to be observed
The primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of the proposed represented person.[15] The starting point for the Tribunal is that every person is presumed to be capable of looking after their own health and safety, managing their own affairs and making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their estate and their person.[16]
[15] GA Act, s 4(2).
[16] 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 proposed represented person is a person for whom a guardianship and an administration order can be made.[17]
[17] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; LP [2020] WASAT 25 at [48]. GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10 at [36].
Orders should not be made if NP's needs could, in the opinion of the Tribunal, be met by other means less restrictive of her freedom of decision and action.[18] In the event that orders are made appointing an administrator or a guardian, the orders should be in terms that impose the least restrictions possible on NP's freedom of decision and action.[19] The Tribunal is also required to ask about the views and wishes of the person concerned.[20]
[18] GA Act, s 4(4).
[19] GA Act, s 4(6).
[20] GA Act, s 4(7).
To appoint an administrator for NP, I must be satisfied that NP is currently unable, by reason of mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of her estate and that she is in need of an administrator of her estate.[21]
[21] GA Act, s 64.
To appoint a guardian for NP, I must be satisfied that one or more of the following three factors apply to NP:
(a)that she is currently incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(b)that she is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person; or
(c)that she is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety.[22]
[22] GA Act, s 43(1)(b).
I must also be satisfied that there is a need for a guardian.[23]
[23] GA Act s 43(1)(c).
When considering the appointment of a guardian and administrator, the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that those people nominated for appointment are suitable to be appointed.[24] I will discuss the suitability requirements in more detail later in these reasons.
[24] GA Act, s 44(1) and s 68(1).
Finally, the Tribunal must determine the period within which the orders will be reviewed.[25] The longest period of time that orders can be in place for is five years before they are reviewed.
[25] GA Act, s 84.
NP's views and wishes
NP was clear that she wanted to live in her Home. She said she wanted her son SP to live with and care for her, as he spends a lot of time caring for her. She said she is happy for all of her family to visit her.
Evidence given at the Hearing
I have had regard to and considered the following documents filed in the proceedings:
(a)Letter from Dr O, psychiatrist from the Older Adult and Forensic Psychiatry team at Hospital dated 12 June 2023 (Dr O Letter);
(b)the email from SP to the Delegated Guardian and copied to the Trust Manager dated 13 February 2024 (Email);
(c)the application filed by SP on 11 March 2024 and submissions filed on 17 March, 19 March, 10 April and 16 May 2024;
(d)service provider report dated 19 March 2024 prepared by clinical nurse manager at the Aged Care facility (Service Provider Report);
(e)the OPA Report dated 10 May 2024; and
(f)the PT Report dated 14 May 2024.
I have also had regard to that document as well as the oral evidence and submissions given in the course of the Hearing by each of:
(i)NP;
(ii)SP, his son MP and his partner MM;
(iii)PP;
(iv)TP; and
(v)the Delegated Guardian;
I have taken all of this evidence into account when making this decision.
Does NP have a mental disability?
I am satisfied, and I find, that NP has a mental disability. In addition to NP scoring 15/30 on the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) in 2021, which is referred to in the Dr O Letter, where Dr O confirmed NP's diagnosis of moderately severe dementia likely mixed (Alzheimer's/vascular) with early symptoms of BPSD as at 12 June 2023. NP had been referred for the review with Dr O 'for assessment of increasing paranoia and agitation in the context of 5 years of cognitive decline and likely moderate – severe Alzheimer's dementia …'[26]
[26] Dr O Letter, page 1.
Dr O reports that at the assessment, NP was highly repetitive in conversation, disorientated in time (she believed it was 1999), at times she believed the children still lived in the house with her and at other times, stated her sister lived in the house and that she cooked for them daily. She could not recall that her children were married and she was unable to name or provide an accurate number of her grandchildren.
She reported feeling more fearful and anxious, particularly at night, because she was alone and worried about her safety. PP stated there had been a decline over the previous three to four months and she had become increasingly paranoid, anxious, tearful and irritable. She was accusing her children of hiding/taking things, she was worried about intruders at night and expressed increasing concern that someone is trying to steal her money resulting in late-night phone calls to her children.[27]
[27] Dr O Letter, page 2.
Having regard to the documentary and oral evidence provided to the Tribunal,[28] I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, and I find, that the presumption of capacity has been set aside in respect of NP's ability to make reasonable judgments in respect of her estate.
Does the mental disability cause NP to be unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of her estate?
[28] In matters GAA/3816/2023 and GAA/1711/2024 and at the hearings of 29 September 2023 and 20 May 2024.
I am satisfied, and I find, that the mental disability is the cause of NP's inability to make reasonable judgments in respect of her estate. PP gave oral evidence at the hearing of 29 September 2023 that he became involved with managing NP's finances in 2021 when she started hiding her money and then blaming other people for moving or stealing it. Prior to that, NP and PP would go to the bank together where NP would withdraw $1,000 and she was able to manage those funds herself. The behaviour around confusion and paranoia described by PP is consistent with the summary of NP's behaviours as recorded in the Dr O Letter.
Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, I find that NP is, by reason of the mental disability, unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of her estate and she continues to be a person for whom I can appoint an administrator.
Does NP have the capacity to make personal decisions?
NP is currently incapable of looking after her own health and safety and she is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person. NP needs prompting with her personal care, reminders to change her clothes and requires assistance to take her medications.
NP is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety. NP has a number of significant health conditions that need monitoring, such as osteoporosis, ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, hypertension and incontinence. NP needs reminding on how to use the 'call bell' at the Aged Care facility and she is a falls risk. She has also tried to abscond from Aged Care.[29]
[29] Service Provider Report.
Accordingly, I find that the presumption of capacity is rebutted by the evidence and NP continues to be a person for whom I can appoint a guardian.
Is there a need for orders?
There is no doubt that NP requires assistance to make decisions about her financial and personal matters. The question is whether she needs a guardian and an administrator, or whether there is a less restrictive option available.
The Tribunal has not received any evidence that would indicate that NP has the capacity to sign an enduring power of attorney or enduring power of guardianship, so those less restrictive options are not available.
Informal arrangements are not sufficient in this case as NP needs someone with a legal authority to be able to manage her financial affairs, to read and sign contracts such as those relating to her accommodation and to make ongoing medical treatment decisions. Due to the family conflict, NP also needs someone to be able to manage who she had contact with and the extent of that contact, to avoid any further family conflict of the type that created the need for the FVROs.
NP's lack of insight into the difficulties that she is having means that she is unable to do this herself. I am therefore satisfied, and I find, that NP is still in need of both a guardian and an administrator.
Is the proposed administrator and guardian suitable to be appointed?
SP is the only person that has proposed themselves as NP's administrator and guardian. I find that SP is over the age of 18 and has consented to act.[30]
[30] GA Act, s 68(1).
When considering the appointment of an administrator, the Tribunal must hold the opinion that any proposed administrator will act in the best interests of NP[31] and is suitable to act as the administrator of her estate.[32] When assessing suitability, the Tribunal must take into account the compatibility between the guardian and administrator, if any,[33] the wishes of the person concerned,[34] and whether the proposed administrator will be able to perform the functions vested in them.[35]
[31] GA Act, s 68(1)(c).
[32] GA Act, s 68(1)(d).
[33] GA Act, s 68(3)(a).
[34] GA Act, s 68(3)(b).
[35] GA Act, s 68(3)(c).
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,[36] is suitable to act as the guardian,[37] is not in a position where their interests' conflict or may conflict with NP's interests[38] and that the proposed guardian will be able to perform functions vested in them.[39]
[36] GA Act, s 44(1)(a).
[37] GA Act, s 44(1)(c).
[38] GA Act, s 44(1)(b).
[39] GA Act, s 44(2)(d).
For the reasons that follow, I find that SP is not suitable to act as the guardian or the administrator of NP's estate due to:
(a)the compatibility required between the guardian and administrator;
(b)the conflict of interest between SP and NP; and
(c)the family conflict.
Compatibility
The Tribunal must take into account the compatibility between the proposed guardian and the proposed administrator.[40] SP was clear about his personal view in respect of the decisions made by the Delegated Guardian so I am not satisfied, if SP was appointed as administrator, that he would give effect to the decisions made by the Delegated Guardian if reappointed.
[40] GA Act, s 68(3)(a).
Likewise, if SP was appointed the guardian, and the Public Trustee was reappointed as the administrator, I would have concerns about whether SP would be able to work co-operatively with the Public Trustee, or with anyone else.
Conflict of interest
A conflict of interest exists between SP and NP due to SP's personal interest in having the Home transferred into his name. SP asserts that NP agreed to transfer the Home to him as a gift.
In the Email, NP states:[41]
[41] Email from SP to Delegated Guardian of 13 February 2024, pages 3-4.
…
Legally I have the right to claim this benefit for breach of an agreement between [NP] and me. An agreement is only void legally before one or more parties have met their obligations. I meet [sic] my obligation by moving in on 30th August 23.
…
Breach of contract happens when one party to a valid contract fails to fulfil their side of the agreement. If the party doesn't do what the contract says they must do, the other party can sue.
…
… Under the law, once a contract is breached, the guilty party must remedy the breach. The primary solutions are damages, specific performance or contract cancellation and restitution …
…
Therefore, if my legal advice is correct the court will determine the outcome of whether [NP] had legal capacity at the time. My legal advice says she knew what she was doing at the time of signing the letter that outlined her wishes.
…
The course which I have been forced to undertake is now to seek a legal remedy[.]
I am therefore satisfied, and I find, that SP's personal interest in having the Home transferred into his name will influence his decision to care for NP in her Home so as to avoid the Home being sold by the administrator to pay the RAD.
Section 82 of the GA Act – transactions may be set aside
I discussed s 82(1) of the GA Act with SP at the Hearing. This section states:
… where a person within 2 months before being declared under section 64(1) to be a person in need of an administrator of his estate has entered into a disposition of any property (including a gift) or taken on lease, mortgaged, charged, or purchased any property, or agreed to do so, the State Administrative Tribunal may, on the application of the administrator of that person's estate and on notice to such persons as the Tribunal may direct, set aside the transaction and make such consequential orders as it thinks fit for the purpose of adjusting the position or rights of the parties and other persons.
To put it simply, any agreement entered into two months before the declaration of incapacity was made by the Tribunal can be set aside. As the declaration of incapacity was made on 29 September 2023, any agreement entered into by NP from 29 July 2023 onwards can be set aside by the Tribunal. The agreement relied upon by SP is dated 26 August 2023 which is within the period whereby the agreement can be set aside.
Family conflict
The conflict between SP, PP and TP was obvious at the Hearing. I asked SP, if he was appointed as the decision-maker for NP, how he would communicate with his brothers about important decisions that relate to NP. SP stated that he would communicate by text or email.
I am not satisfied that communication by text and in writing would be a satisfactory way for these important decisions about NP's personal matters to be discussed, such as where she lives, who will care for her and who she will spend time with.
The guardian needs to be able to confer with all the significant people in NP's life and take their views into account. The guardian needs to discuss the different options available constructively with everyone important to NP, and I am not satisfied that SP would be able to do that using text message and email, but more importantly, because of the significant history of conflict within the family.
TP raised at the Hearing his concern about SP caring for NP at her Home, and how that situation might be dangerous for him and his family when trying to visit NP. On the basis that it was previously necessary for the FVROs to be obtained, I am satisfied, and I find, that the ongoing family conflict is a further reason why SP is not suitable to be appointed as NP's guardian and administrator.
Conclusion of suitability
I therefore find that SP is unsuitable to act as NP's guardian or administrator. I am not satisfied that he would be able to perform the functions that would be vested in the guardian and administrator for the three reasons set out above.[42]
[42] GA Act, s 44(2)(d).
While I accept that he is a devoted son, the conflict of interest means that his decisions, if appointed guardian and administrator, will not be made solely in NP's best interests and will likely be swayed by his own personal interests in preserving NP's ownership of her Home so it can be transferred to him in accordance with the purported agreement reached and signed in August 2023.
The family conflict means that SP would be unable to consider the views of all family members when making important decisions in relation to NP's care and finances. I am satisfied, and I find, that SP would not be able to work co-operatively with any other person appointed as NP's guardian and administrator.
PP and TP have no concerns about the decisions made by the current guardian and administrator. Their view is that it is appropriate that Public Trustee and Public Advocate remain as NP's administrator and guardian respectively. PP consented to reappointment as NP's medical treatment guardian. I am satisfied that he has made decisions in NP's best interests, such as giving consent to flu and COVID vaccines.
As I am not satisfied about SP's suitability in either role, there is no alternative for appointment as NP's administrator other than the Public Trustee, and for appointment as her guardian other than the Public Advocate for the functions of accommodation, services and contact.
Functions/powers of the administrator and guardian
The administration order will continue to be a plenary order, which will allow the administrator to deal with all aspects of NP's estate as required.
The following guardianship functions are still required:
(a)medical treatment and I will reappoint PP in that role;
(b)accommodation, in order to finalise NP's accommodation at the Aged Care facility;
(c)services as the services NP requires will be determined by the accommodation option chosen, so these functions go 'hand in hand'; and
(d)contact so the guardian can ensure that family members are able to safely visit NP at the Aged Care facility and to avoid conflict that might endanger NP or the staff at the Aged Care facility.
The guardianship order reappointing the Public Advocate will therefore be a limited order and will include accommodation, services and contact.
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.[43] The medical evidence is clear that NP has a diagnosis of a progressive illness such that her need for a guardian and administrator will be lifelong.
[43] GA Act, s 84.
I previously set the review period for the Orders for one year as I had hoped that it would provide time for at least some of the areas of conflict between NP's sons to be resolved. However, the conflict is longstanding and ongoing, so it is not in NP's best interests to subject her to a further Tribunal hearing any earlier than necessary. Therefore, these orders are to be reviewed within the maximum term possible which is within five years of today.
I therefore make the following declarations and orders.
Orders
The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [NP] is:
(a)unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of her estate;
(b)in need of an administrator of her estate;
(c)incapable of looking after her own health and safety;
(d)unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person;
(e)in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety; and
(f)in need of a guardian.
The Tribunal orders:
1.Leave is granted to the applicant to apply for the review.
Administration
The administration order dated 29 September 2023 is amended as follows:
2.The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the represented person's estate with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
3.The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $2,000 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.
4.The administration order is to be reviewed by 20 May 2029.
Guardianship
The guardianship order dated 29 September 2023 is amended as follows:
5.[PP] of [address] is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following function:
(a)to make treatment decisions for the represented person, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
6.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 determine what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact; and
(d)to determine the services to which the represented person should have access.
7.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.
8.The guardianship order is to be reviewed by 20 May 2029.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
27 MAY 2024