PV - [2020] WASAT 40 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   PV [2020] WASAT 40
MEMBER:   MS F CHILD, MEMBER
HEARD:   6 FEBRUARY 2020
DELIVERED          :   26 FEBRUARY 2020
PUBLISHED           :   14 APRIL 2020
FILE NO/S:   GAA 3911 of 2019

PV
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Represented person with long standing psychiatric conditions - Review of administration order - Whether administrator suitable for appointment - Factors to be taken into account in determining suitability - Compatibility with guardian - Scope of authority of plenary guardian - Administrator's ability to perform the functions and obligation to act in best interests of the represented person

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 4(2), s 4(7), s 44(2)(b), s 45, s 45(2), s 50, s 64, s 68, s 68(1)(c), s 68(3)(a), s 68(3)(b), s 68(3)(c), s 70, s 70(2)(b), s 71(1), s 71(2), s 85, s 85(2), s 85(2)(c), s 86, s 87
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 34
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)

Result:

Administration order revoked

Public Trustee appointed administrator

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person

Mr L Cassidy

Solicitors:

Represented Person

Mental Health Law Centre

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

LGW [2004] WAGAB 4
SAL and JGL [2016] WASAT 63

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

These are the reasons for the decision made on review of an administration order made for PV dated 30 April 2019 by which AF, a friend of PV, is appointed plenary administrator of PV's estate.
The application for review was filed on 14 October 2019 by CM, a social worker at Graylands Hospital (the applicant) and was originally listed for hearing on 12 December 2019. PV was served a notice of that hearing on 14 November 2019.
The original listing date was vacated because of the unavailability of counsel for PV and was relisted on 20 February 2020. The applicant then sought an urgent hearing because PV had discharged himself from Charles Gairdner Hospital (SCGH) against medical advice on 17 December 2019 and had not returned to Graylands Hospital where he had been a patient since 2017. PV's whereabouts were unknown to the treating team and he was reported as a missing person. In the final hearing PV denied that he had discharged himself from SCGH against medical advice or that he was a missing person.
The matter was listed for directions on 16 January 2020. Orders were made allowing inspection of the application and other documents filed by the parties. PV indicated he was seeking an opinion from another psychiatrist and a report from his general practitioner. The application was listed for final hearing on 6 February 2020.
The review was heard on 6 February 2020 and the decision announced on 26 February 2020.

Application

The review application was brought under s 85(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) the (GA Act) seeking the removal of AF as the administrator of PV's estate.
Section 85(2)(c) of the…

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 PV

Details

AGLC: PV [2020] WASAT 40
Case: [2020] WASAT 40
Decision Date: 26 FEBRUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a review of an administration order concerning an individual with long-standing psychiatric conditions. The parties included the represented person, the current administrator, and a proposed new administrator. The central dispute was whether the proposed new administrator was suitable for the role and compatible with the existing guardian. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was tasked with determining the criteria for assessing the suitability of an administrator for a represented person with psychiatric conditions. This involved examining the compatibility of the proposed administrator with the existing guardian and considering the administrator's ability to perform their functions and obligations in the best interests of the represented person. The court also needed to clarify the scope of authority of a plenary guardian in this context.

In its decision, the court emphasised that the suitability of an administrator must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering various factors including the compatibility with the guardian and the administrator's capacity to act in the represented person's best interests. The court highlighted that the primary concern was the welfare of the represented person, and the proposed administrator's ability to align with these welfare needs was paramount. The court concluded that the proposed administrator was suitable for the role, given the evidence presented regarding their compatibility and ability to act in the represented person's best interests.

Orders