QW [2007] WASAT 23

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2007] WASAT 23
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:2026/2006	Heard:	1 NOVEMBER 2006
Coram:	MS D DEAN (MEMBER)	Delivered:	30/01/07
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	A guardianship order was made appointing VJ limited guardian of QW
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	QW
Catchwords:	Application for guardianship Need for a guardianship order Dementia
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4(2), s 43, s 44(1), s 44(2), s 51, Div 3 Pt 5
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : QW [2007] WASAT 23 MEMBER : MS D DEAN (MEMBER) HEARD : 1 NOVEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 31 JANUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : GAA 2026 of 2006 BETWEEN : QW

Proposed Represented Person

Catchwords:

Application for guardianship - Need for a guardianship order - Dementia

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4(2), s 43, s 44(1), s 44(2), s 51, Div 3 Pt 5

Result:

A guardianship order was made appointing VJ limited guardian of QW

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Proposed Represented Person : Self-represented

Solicitors:

Proposed Represented Person : Self-represented

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

Nil

(Page 3)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

1 QW is an elderly woman diagnosed in 2004 with dementia. In 2005 QW married MW. QW had two daughters who were in conflict with MW and as a result contact between QW and the daughters was compromised.

2 In March 2006 QW's daughter made applications to the Tribunal for administration and guardianship orders. The Tribunal found that QW was a person for whom orders could be made and appointed the Public Trustee plenary administrator for 12 months. The Tribunal made a short administration order to give the family time to resolve their differences and in the likelihood that a family appointment might later be made.

3 The application for guardianship was dismissed on the basis that there was no need for an order as QW's granddaughter, who was on good terms with all family members, agreed to act as a go between and ensure that QW's needs were being met and that contact between QW and her daughters could occur.

4 In October 2006 QW's daughters made an application to the Tribunal for a guardianship order because MW planned an interstate holiday for himself and QW and refused to provide the daughters with contact information during the planned holiday.

5 The Tribunal found that there was a need for a guardianship order as the family had been unable to work together to ensure that QW had all her medical, welfare and accommodation needs met and as a result her health and welfare were at risk. Further, the Tribunal found that MW had, because of his conflictual relationship with the daughters, made contact between QW and her daughters difficult. In…

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 QW

Details

AGLC: QW [2007] WASAT 23
Case: [2007] WASAT 23
Decision Date: 31 JANUARY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application for a guardianship order concerning an elderly woman, QW, who suffered from dementia. The application was brought by her daughter, VJ, who sought to be appointed as her limited guardian. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court had to determine whether QW was a person in need of a guardianship order and whether it was appropriate for VJ to be appointed as her limited guardian.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether QW required a guardianship order due to her dementia, which affected her ability to manage her personal and financial affairs. The court considered evidence from medical professionals and family members about QW's condition and ability to make decisions. The court also had to assess whether VJ was a suitable person to act as QW's limited guardian, considering her relationship with QW and her ability to manage QW's affairs.

The court found that QW's dementia significantly impaired her capacity to manage her personal and financial affairs, and that a guardianship order was necessary to protect her interests. The court noted that QW was unable to make decisions regarding her medical treatment, financial matters, and daily living activities. The court accepted that VJ was a suitable person to be appointed as QW's limited guardian, as she had a close relationship with QW, understood her needs, and was willing and able to manage QW's affairs. The court concluded that a guardianship order appointing VJ as limited guardian was in QW's best interests.

The court made a guardianship order appointing VJ as the limited guardian of QW. This order granted VJ the authority to make decisions on QW's behalf in relation to her personal and financial affairs, while ensuring that QW's rights and interests were protected.

Orders

Orders of the court

A guardianship order was made appointing VJ limited guardian of QW

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.