NR - [2017] WASAT 101

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: NR [2017] WASAT 101

MEMBER: MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)

HEARD: 28 JUNE 2017

DELIVERED : 20 JULY 2017

FILE NO/S: GAA 1741 of 2017

BETWEEN :NR
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Capacity - Presumption of capacity - Mental disability - Unable to make reasonable judgments - Paranoid schizophrenia - Paranoid personality disorder - Major mental illness - DSM-5 - Criminal charges - Civil actions - Bankruptcy petition - Complex estate

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 3(1), s 4, s 43, s 44, s 45, s 64, s 68, s 69, s 84, s 97(1)(c)
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)

Result:

Administrator and guardian appointed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

NR is a 54-year-old man detained in a forensic mental health facility under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA). He is subject to a number of criminal charges including assault.
NR is also subject to several civil actions and has been served with a bankruptcy notice under the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth). He has also taken civil action against a number of parties and these are yet to be concluded.
He owns a strata property which is at risk of seizure and sale.
Applications for guardianship and administration orders pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act1990 (WA) were made by the Public Advocate in respect of NR.
NR was opposed to the making of guardianship and administration orders except in a limited sense to dispose of his strata property and to purchase a new property (it would appear under his direction which would not be permitted under an administration order).
Prior to his admission to the forensic mental health facility, NR had been under the care of the team at a mental health clinic.
There was a difference of opinion between the forensic team and the team at the mental health clinic as to whether NR had a major mental illness. The forensic team diagnosed NR with paranoid schizophrenia whilst the team at the mental health clinic had earlier diagnosed him with a paranoid delusional disorder. The former is a major mental illness, the latter is not.
The Tribunal accepted the opinion of the forensic team but in any case found that on either diagnosis, NR has a mental disability for the purposes of the Guardianship and Administration Act1990 (WA).
The Tribunal found that NR's mental disability impacted on his ability to make reasonable judgments concerning his estate and in respect to certain significant personal matters.
NR's estate has assumed a complexity largely as a result of his own actions.
The Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee as the plenary administrator of his estate.
The Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as NR's limited guardian to ensure he is given legal assistance for the criminal matters and for his future accommodation and support services.
The Tribunal set a review date for both orders at 12 months.

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 NR

Details

AGLC: NR [2017] WASAT 101
Case: [2017] WASAT 101
Decision Date: 20 JULY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in this case involved a person's mental capacity, specifically regarding their ability to make reasonable judgments due to paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid personality disorder. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to be appointed as the respondent's legal guardian and administrator, arguing that the respondent's mental condition rendered them unable to manage their affairs.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent had the capacity to make decisions about their personal and financial matters. The plaintiff argued that the respondent's mental health conditions and criminal charges supported a finding of incapacity, while the respondent contested this, asserting their ability to manage their affairs. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the respondent's mental state, including diagnoses and expert opinions, and whether these conditions met the threshold for a finding of incapacity under the relevant legislation.

The court found that the respondent's paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid personality disorder significantly impaired their ability to make reasonable judgments, leading to the conclusion that they lacked capacity to manage their affairs. The evidence, including the respondent's history of criminal charges and civil actions, as well as their financial situation, supported this finding. The court was satisfied that the respondent's mental illness met the criteria for a major mental illness under the DSM-5 and that this condition substantially affected their decision-making abilities. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for appointment as the legal guardian and administrator of the respondent's estate.

Orders