PF
[2017] WASAT 69
•24 MARCH 2017
PF [2017] WASAT 69
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2017] WASAT 69 | |
| 11/05/2017 | |||
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:4136/2016 | 28 FEBRUARY 2017 | |
| Coram: | MS F CHILD (MEMBER) | 24/03/17 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Administration order made, Public Trustee appointed Application for costs dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PF |
Catchwords: | Guardianship and administration Review of administration order Application for directions by administrators Ongoing conflict between appointed administrators Requirement for consent to appointment Requirement administrators act unanimously Suitability for appointment Application for costs under s 16(4) of Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) |
Legislation: | Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 16(4), s 68(1), s 68(3), s 72(1), s 74, s 75, s 76, s 86, Sch 2 Pt B, Sch 2(h) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 60(2), s 87(1) |
Case References: | LC and JS [2007] WASAT 127 |
Summary | Following a review of an administration order which appointed three of the represented person's children as joint administrators of her estate, the Tribunal revoked the order and appointed the Public Trustee as administrator. The Tribunal found that the children were in conflict and had demonstrated an inability to communicate effectively and cooperate in the management of the estate. The Tribunal found that as a consequence, there had been delays in the management of the estate and that there were risks to the estate. Although two of the three administrators proposed that the appointment of the three children be confirmed with directions given to the administrators, the Tribunal found that this application illustrated the lack of unanimity between the administrators and even if the directions had been given, they would not provide a durable resolution to the conflict between them. In these circumstances it was in the best interests of the represented person that an independent administrator be appointed. The Tribunal authorised the Public Trustee as administrator to exercise the represented person's powers as trustee of the family trust. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : PF [2017] WASAT 69 MEMBER : MS F CHILD (MEMBER) HEARD : 28 FEBRUARY 2017 DELIVERED : 24 MARCH 2017 PUBLISHED : 11 MAY 2017 FILE NO/S : GAA 4136 of 2016 MATTER : PF
- Represented Person
Catchwords:
Guardianship and administration Review of administration order Application for directions by administrators Ongoing conflict between appointed administrators Requirement for consent to appointment Requirement administrators act unanimously Suitability for appointment Application for costs under s 16(4) of Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 16(4), s 68(1), s 68(3), s 72(1), s 74, s 75, s 76, s 86, Sch 2 Pt B, Sch 2(h)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 60(2), s 87(1)
Result:
Administration order made, Public Trustee appointed
Application for costs dismissed
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
Following a review of an administration order which appointed three of the represented person's children as joint administrators of her estate, the Tribunal revoked the order and appointed the Public Trustee as administrator. The Tribunal found that the children were in conflict and had demonstrated an inability to communicate effectively and cooperate in the management of the estate. The Tribunal found that as a consequence, there had been delays in the management of the estate and that there were risks to the estate. Although two of the three administrators proposed that the appointment of the three children be confirmed with directions given to the administrators, the Tribunal found that this application illustrated the lack of unanimity between the administrators and even if the directions had been given, they would not provide a durable resolution to the conflict between them. In these circumstances it was in the best interests of the represented person that an independent administrator be appointed. The Tribunal authorised the Public Trustee as administrator to exercise the represented person's powers as trustee of the family trust.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Represented Person : N/A
Applicant for Review : Mr J Roberston
Applicants for Directions : Mr T Clavey and Ms S Davies
Solicitors:
Represented Person : N/A
Applicant for Review : Williams + Hughes
Applicants for Directions : Jarman McKenna
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
LC and JS [2007] WASAT 127
Introduction
1 The application filed in this matter was an application for review of an administration order dated 3 March 2016 by which C, A and M were appointed the joint plenary administrators of the estate of Mrs PF (the represented person) pursuant to s 86 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) filed by C on 21 November 2016. For the purposes of these reasons family members will be referred to by an initial.
2 Applications were subsequently filed on 11 January 2017 by A and M, seeking directions pursuant to s 74 of the GA Act and, further, for an order pursuant to s 72(1) authorising the administrators to exercise powers under Pt B of Sch 2 of the GA Act to exercise the powers of the represented person under the family trust to manage trust property and to exercise the powers of the represented person as appointor to exercise the power of appointment of the trust.
3 Following the hearing on 28 February 2017, the Tribunal determined that once final submissions were filed by the parties that the applications should be determined on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) and made orders to that effect. These are the reasons for the decisions made in respect of the applications filed in the matter of the represented person, by her children who have been appointed administrators of her estate. The transcript of the reasons of the Tribunal delivered on 24 March 2017 has been edited to remove any identifying information and for clarity.
The history of the orders
4 The original application for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the represented person was initiated in 2015 by C who asserted at that time that the represented person had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia, that she lacked capacity and there needed to be accountability and transparency in the management of her financial affairs. In the material filed in the original proceeding it appears that the application for the administration order was initially opposed by both A and M and a proposal made for the continued informal management of the represented person's affairs by A.
5 It seems that later there was an agreement reached between C, A and M, and a minute of proposed orders was filed proposing the appointment of the three children of the represented person as joint plenary administrators of the estate. That order was made by the Tribunal on 3 March 2016. The order was due for review by March 2018. The order included authority to make gifts of up to $2000 per annum.
Evidence before the Tribunal in the present proceedings
6 Considerable material has been filed for the purpose of these proceedings and the Tribunal has had regard to that material, and also to the material on the Tribunal's file filed in the original proceeding when the administration order was first made. This material included medical reports, including a neuropsychologist's report of an assessment from 2016, correspondence from the applicants and others, submissions from the parties, affidavits of the administrators and the brothersinlaw of the represented person.
7 The Tribunal has also received and provided to the parties a copy of the Public Trustee's report of 17 February 2017. Brief oral submissions were made at the hearing on 28 February 2017 and final submissions received on 14 March 2017.
Principles to be observed
8 In all proceedings of the Tribunal brought under the GA Act the Tribunal must observe the principles set out in s 4. There is a presumption of capacity of persons the subject of an application unless that presumption is set aside on the evidence. Orders should not be made unless they are needed, and any orders made should be least restrictive of the person's freedom of decision and action. The wishes of the represented person should be ascertained. The primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of the represented person.
Is the presumption set aside and is the represented person a person for whom an administration order may be made?
9 At the hearing in this proceeding the Tribunal referred to medical evidence previously filed with the Tribunal for the original proceeding, which included reports from Dr C, a geriatrician, Dr L, a psychiatrist, and Dr P, a neurologist. In the geriatrician's report a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in 2015 by the neurologist, Dr P, is recorded. Dr C's report appears to accord with this diagnosis. Dr P's opinion was that the represented person was incapable of managing her affairs.
10 Dr L, the psychiatrist, gave the opinion that the represented person was incapable of managing her own affairs and incapable of executing an enduring power of attorney. A neuropsychologist on testing in January 2016 reported cognitive screening of the represented person found deficits in basic orientation, learning and memory, praxis and planning. The represented person was reported to only be able to provide broad and seemingly inaccurate information about her property interests and assets, and was not able to give details.
11 Despite education it was reported she was unable to understand essential elements of an enduring power of attorney. At the time of the assessment the represented person was found to be disoriented in time. Her learning and memory of small amounts of information was minimal and inaccurate. This finding was consistent with the opinion given by Dr L in 2014 that the represented person did not have capacity to execute an enduring power of attorney.
12 At the hearing in February 2017 there was no challenge to the medical opinion or the preliminary view expressed by the Tribunal that the represented person is unable to manage any aspect of her estate. Based on the medical evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal confirms the finding made on 28 February 2017, that the represented person is a person for whom an administration order may be made in that she is unable by reason of a mental disability to make reasonable judgments about her estate.
Is there a need for an administrator of the estate?
13 The represented person does not have an enduring power of attorney. The medical and other professional opinion provided in 2016 is that the represented person could not execute such an instrument at that time. The Tribunal accepts that evidence. Given what is understood to be the progressive nature of her diagnosed condition, the Tribunal finds she remains incapable of executing an enduring power of attorney.
14 The material filed by the applicants, and the report of the Public Trustee dated 17 February 2017 reporting on account number 1, as filed by the administrators, identifies the represented person's estate. In summary, the represented person is the owner variously in her own right, or with others or as trustee, of commercial properties in [locations delated], a vacant commercial property in [location deleted] and commercial properties in [location deleted]. She owns a house in which she lives, bank accounts and interest in bank accounts, and has vehicles. No pension is reported and the represented person's income is understood to be derived from the rental properties.
15 The applicant for review, C, also indicates that the represented person owns property overseas, together with her brothersinlaw, although this is not reported in the accounts. The represented person is the sole trustee and appointor of the [name deleted] Family Trust. There is no provision in the trust deed in the event of incapacity of a trustee or appointor. Although there is in law a clear distinction between the property owned by the represented person in her own right versus as trustee, for ease of reference for the purpose of these reasons I refer to all these property interests as the estate of the represented person.
16 The Tribunal finds there is a need for an administrator of the represented person's estate. The represented person does not have capacity herself, has no enduring power of attorney, and has property and other interests to be managed. Given the represented person's estate is relatively large and complex, formality is required in the management of the estate and the Tribunal finds there is no less restrictive alternative to the making of an administration order.
17 Having decided the represented person is in need of an administrator of her estate the Tribunal must consider who is suitable for appointment as administrator.
Proposals for orders
18 The applicant for review, C, proposes the existing order be revoked and the Public Trustee be appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person for five years. This proposal is opposed by A and M who propose that the existing administration order, which appoints the three children jointly, continue and that the Tribunal give directions to the administrators pursuant to s 74 of the GA Act.
19 Section 74 provides that the Tribunal may give directions to the administrator on the application of any administrator and that if the Tribunal so directs the administrator shall comply with any direction given. The directions sought by two of the administrators are in Annexure A to their application and may be summarised as follows: that the administrators be directed to appoint a nominated managing agent for the properties of the represented person to negotiate lease documents and manage the properties, collect the rent and pay the expenses, and be accountable to the administrators.
20 In respect to the [location deleted] property, to negotiate a lease and liaise with the coowners, that C be directed to sign a cheque for the purposes of paying deposits for renovations at the [location deleted] property, that C be directed to sign the tax returns of the represented person for the period July 2014/June 2015, that the administrators appoint a nominated accountant to provide advice and services to the estate, and to meet all tax obligations. It is also submitted on behalf of A and M, the applicants for directions, that their costs be borne by the estate.
21 In respect of the application provided for in s 72(1) of the GA Act for authority under Pt B of Sch 2, it is submitted that the administrators be authorised to exercise the represented person's power as appointor of the trust to appoint a new trustee of the trust by consensus and if consensus cannot be reached then by majority of not less than two administrators.
Suitability of the administrators for appointment
22 In determining the suitability of administrators for appointment the Tribunal must have regard to s 68(3) of the GA Act which provides that the Tribunal shall take into account, as far as possible, the compatibility of proposed appointees with the represented person, the wishes of the represented person and whether the proposed appointees will be able to perform the functions proposed to be vested in the administrators.
23 It is reported in the material before the Tribunal that the represented person remains living in her own home and is supported to do so by the involvement of her children. From this the Tribunal infers that all of her children are compatible with the represented person. Material filed by each of the applicants indicates their interest in and their concern for their mother.
24 The Tribunal is bound to ascertain the wishes of the represented person.
25 In respect of the wishes of the represented person it is submitted on behalf of A and M that the represented person has recently expressed her opposition to the application made by C for review and revocation of the existing order, and her proposal for the appointment of the Public Trustee, when A and M raised it directly with her. They report she opposes the involvement of the government in her affairs.
26 It was reported in the neuropsychologist's report of the assessment conducted in January 2016 that the represented person said, 'If I get sick or die I want three of them' that is the children 'together to sort things out'. The represented person is reportedly quite clear in her wish that her finances be equally distributed between her three children, but the report notes an inconsistency as to which of her children she wished to take a primary responsibility and she could not state whether there were any formal measures in place.
27 The represented person was reported in the same assessment to believe that her children always spoke with each other, and she did not acknowledge any discontent between them, believing that they shared good relationships with each other. In the report of Dr L from 2014, when the represented person was assessed for her capacity to execute an enduring power of attorney, the represented person was reported to believe that the children trusted one another and she trusted them. As noted at that time she was assessed as not being able to execute an enduring power of attorney by Dr L.
28 It is accepted that the wish of the represented person is that her children jointly manage her financial affairs. It is accepted that this has been her clear and consistent wish over time. The Tribunal accepts the opinion of the health professionals who have interviewed the represented person that the represented person does not appreciate that there is significant conflict between her children. It is reported that she believes they communicate and cooperate with one another.
29 The neuropsychologist reported, and the Tribunal accepts, that the represented person did not have an understanding then of the complexity of her estate and finds that it is unlikely that if she were aware of the conflict between her children that she would have the necessary insight to appreciate the impact that conflict is having on the administration of her estate.
30 In respect of s 68(3)(iii) of the GA Act, the ability of the administrator to perform the functions in the administration of the estate, the Tribunal finds that the existing administrators have not been able to perform the functions required in the administration of this estate. The administrators have been appointed for just over a year and in the material filed by both C and by A and M it is evident that significant matters remain outstanding in the management of the estate.
31 Although it appears from the material filed that there may have been an agreement reached about the appointment of a managing agent to deal with the commercial properties by the time of the hearing in February 2017, this appointment had not occurred and C, when asked in the hearing, did not wish to withdraw her application for review. In their submissions, and at the hearing, reasons are advanced by both C and A for what has been common ground has been substantial delay in attending to matters in the management of the estate, although there is no agreement between them about what has caused the delay.
32 It is asserted on behalf of A and M that they are more than willing to work with C, and the delay in the management of and decisionmaking for the estate is as a result of the unwillingness of C to get together in one room to make decisions. A says he prefers to meet personally rather than email because of what he says is 'interference' by the spouse of C. C continues to assert there is a lack of transparency in the administration of the estate which is consistent with her assertions made in the original application.
33 C asserts that she has been denied an opportunity to speak to solicitors for the family trust on her own or take her spouse to meetings of the administrators, and has been asked to sign off on tax records and documents for the management of the estate without having an opportunity to read them or absorb their content. C states that she disagrees with decisions made in respect of hiring what she says is an unqualified builder who has provided what she says is an excessive quote to renovate a commercial property of the represented person.
34 C questions the insurance arrangements on the properties, suggesting there may not have been proper disclosure to the insurer, and that there was a delay in renewing policies which led to the risk of the represented person's properties being uninsured. C also takes issue with the management of some of the commercial tenancies of the estate which she asserts do not have formal leases and others which have rental arrears. It is asserted by C that some cash payments may have been made to A by a tenant. A denies all the allegations made by C and a specific allegation about the cash payment is denied by the tenant.
35 C states she is unwilling to meet with the other administrators, preferring that their dealings be in email correspondence so there is a record of them. It is asserted on behalf of A and M that the engagement of a property management agent will remove the scope for disagreement between the administrators and reduce the issues which they need to deal with, and the complexities around the ownership, to manage the interests of the represented person as regards to the other property owners who are family members and who appear to also have been drawn in somewhat into the conflict.
36 It is submitted that the property management agent, who is independent and detached and objective, will be able to cut through and deal with the estate. Section 76 of the GA Act provides that administrators may employ agents to act on their behalf and this can include solicitors and real estate agents. However, the appointment of such agents remains that any agent acts only on instructions from the appointed administrator who bears ultimate responsibility for the conduct of matters of the estate.
37 The appointment of an agent does not substitute for decisionmaking by the administrator. In the context of continuing conflict about many matters, including process issues, such as who can attend meetings of the administrators, or whether there should be meetings or email correspondence to make decisions, demonstrates a level of conflict that, in the view of the Tribunal, will not easily be resolved. Any managing agent needs to refer many ongoing matters regarding the properties to the owner or her representative.
38 Even with an active professional managing agent there is a risk, even a likelihood, that the manifest conflict between the current administrators will again interfere with the proper administration of the estate.
39 Section 75 of the GA Act requires that the appointed joint plenary administrators should not perform any function without the concurrence of the other administrators, and where they are not unanimous as to the performance of any function they may apply to the Tribunal for directions under s 74 of the GA Act.
40 C asserts that she does not trust A and it is apparent there is no cooperation between the administrators and little effective communication. It is said that the financial records of the represented person are left at the represented person's home so that each of the administrators may access them, but each says that the records are incomplete and that there is a failure of cooperation on the part of the other.
41 There has also been engagement of solicitors on both sides in an effort to communicate and it is now submitted that the costs of the application for directions to the administrators be borne by the estate.
42 C says that the application for directions was made without reference to her. The nature of directions sought are no doubt fundamental to the management of such an estate, however, the proposed directions are not a complete list of the functions to be performed in the management of the estate. The applications presently before the Tribunal illustrate the lack of unanimity in the management of the estate which is required for the appointment of joint administrators.
43 Since the administrators cannot be unanimous as to decisionmaking, as evidenced by the directions sought, the proposal for the reappointment of the administrators as proposed by A and M is not consistent with the legislation. Relevantly, C has not consented to appointment on these terms which is required by s 68(1) of the GA Act. The Tribunal considers that the making of the directions sought will not provide a durable resolution to what is an obvious ongoing lack of trust, cooperation and communication between C and A.
44 Another consideration is that the represented person may become distressed if she becomes aware of the conflict between her children or is embroiled in the continuing proceedings before this Tribunal. An administration order with three joint administrators was always likely to be challenging even where the appointees act in good faith and cooperate with each other. The impracticality of maintaining such an appointment following the demonstrated lack of communication and cooperation between the present administrators is clear.
45 Delay in making fundamental decisions for the proper management of her estate is not in the best interests of the represented person. There are risks to the estate if this stalemate continues. There is a risk to the estate of further legal costs in the efforts of the administrators to resolve their conflict. There is a risk that delay in dealing with the represented person's estate will result in the represented person not complying with her obligations as a taxpayer, or owner of property or lessor, exposing her estate further.
46 There is an obligation on the Tribunal to make decisions in the best interests of the represented person and, in the judgment of the Tribunal, it is in her best interests that her estate be managed in a timely way, that conflict between her children does not impact on her estate and to the extent possible the potential for conflict between the children is reduced so that the represented person does not experience any impact from that conflict.
47 The Tribunal is not satisfied that the reappointment as proposed by A and M of the three children of the represented person as her joint administrators is in the best interests of the represented person despite, acknowledging that it would be her wish even, if it were possible, had C consented to her reappointment. The appointment of the Public Trustee is opposed by A and M on the grounds that it was not the wish of the represented person, that A and M are unsure what decisions the Public Trustee will take in the course of the administration of the estate and that fees will be charged.
48 Despite these objections the Tribunal finds that the represented person is in need of an independent administrator of her estate. The appointment of the Public Trustee will provide professional independent administration of the estate, with the focus on the best interests of the represented person, as is required of all appointed administrators. In the appointment of the Public Trustee all three children of the represented person can be reassured that decisions will be made regarding the estate free of the fears expressed by the children of improper influence on the administrators or conflicts of interest.
49 Fees will be charged by the Public Trustee and the appointment of the Public Trustee may be more restrictive on the represented person's freedom of decision and action than the present arrangements, but the inability of the present administrators to manage the estate effectively, even it seems against their own long term interests, requires that appointment in the best interests of the estate and the represented person.
50 For the daytoday management of the represented person's household expenses and personal needs there will no doubt be an opportunity for the children to play a supportive role and in liaison with the Public Trustee to ensure that the transition to the Public Trustee's administration is as seamless as possible for the represented person. In respect of the orders sought under Sch 2(h) of the GA Act, in the absence of any provision for succession arrangements in the trustee on the incapacity of the represented person, there is a need for authority to exercise the powers of the represented person as trustee in her lifetime.
51 The proposal that the present administrators be authorised to exercise the represented person's power as appointor of the trust to appoint a new trustee of the trust by consensus, and if consensus cannot be reached then by majority of not less than two administrators, is also not consistent with the requirements that the administrators act unanimously.
52 For the reasons given the Tribunal revokes the order dated 3 March 2016 and substitutes a new order in the following terms: that the Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, be appointed the plenary administrator of the estate; and gifting in the amount of $2000 is authorised.
53 It is further ordered that pursuant to Pt B of Sch 2(h) of the GA Act the Public Trustee is authorised to exercise the powers of the represented person as trustee of the [name deleted] Family Trust. It is sufficient in the view of the Tribunal that the Public Trustee as the appointed administrator be authorised to exercise the powers of the represented person as trustee of the [name deleted] Family Trust to manage the trust properties and orders are made in those terms.
54 The order is to be reviewed by 24 March 2022.
55 The reason for the length of the order is that the conflict and lack of trust between the three children is longstanding. The represented person is unlikely to recover her capacity to manage her own affairs and will need substitute decisionmaking for her lifetime. In the absence of any alternate workable arrangement the appointment of the Public Trustee is made for the maximum period.
56 In respect of the application for costs to be paid from the estate; the costs regime in this Tribunal is well established. Many decisions of the Tribunal set out the parameters of that regime in respect of proceedings brought under the GA Act. See, for example, LC and JS [2007] WASAT 127. In summary, there is provision in s 16(4) of the GA Act to award costs relative to the proceedings to be paid from the estate of the represented person if the Tribunal determines that the party has acted in the best interests of the represented person.
57 However, s 16(4) must be read in light of s 87(1) of the SAT Act which provides that the starting point is that parties to proceedings before the Tribunal are to bear their own costs. There is no question that parties are entitled to be legally represented in the Tribunal. The real question is on what basis should the represented person pay their costs?
58 Although it is accepted that A and M brought the application for directions in an effort to move past the stalemate in the management of the estate as they saw it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that they have acted in the best interests of the represented person in the management of the estate or in the proposals put to the Tribunal. There appears to be very little in the way of compromise to make the administration work by any of the administrators, however, A and M seek payment of their costs so the Tribunal must consider their conduct.
59 An example I consider of lack of compromise on their part is the unwillingness of A and M to allow C to bring her spouse to meetings of the administrators or to allow her to speak to the solicitors for the family trust. If this was the barrier to meeting with C surely this could have been accommodated despite their own views about the spouse. The refusal to allow C to seek information from the lawyers of the family trust also appears unhelpful as this would have improved the flow of information which is said to be the intention of all the parties.
60 Given that the conflict between the siblings is ongoing, the prospect that the directions sought, if given, would provide a durable resolution to the management of the estate, is unlikely. Coupled with the reported failure to consult C about the directions sought, reinforces the administrators' inability to communicate effectively in the best interests of the represented person and appears to undermine any prospect of the administration as they proposed working into the future.
61 While the conflict between the parties is high and they benefited from legal assistance in the preparation of their submissions, it could not be said that they acted in the best interests of the represented person, but rather to maintain their position. As noted, they are entitled to be represented, but the Tribunal should not and does not exercise a discretion to order that their costs be paid from the estate in these circumstances. The application for costs to be paid from the estate is dismissed.
Orders
The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [PF];
(a) is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of her estate; and
(b) is in need of an administrator of her estate,
and the Tribunal orders that:
The administration order dated 3 March 2016 is revoked and an order in the following terms is substituted for it:
1. The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
2. Pursuant to Part B of Schedule 2(h) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)the Public Trustee is authorised to exercise the powers the represented person has as trustee of the [name deleted] Family Trust.
3. The administration order is to be reviewed by 24 March 2022.
I certify that this and the preceding [61] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS F CHILD, MEMBER
0