Re KRL - [2011] WASAT 172

RE KRL [2011] WASAT 172

Last Update: 09/11/2011

RE KRL [2011] WASAT 172
Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2011] WASAT 172
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:2486/2011	Heard:	17 AUGUST 2011
Coram:	MS F CHILD (MEMBER)	Delivered:	17/10/2011
No of Pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed Remuneration order varied
Category:	B
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	KRL
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration Application by an administrator for payment as a carer Remuneration
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 50, s 51(2)(c), s 51(2)(e), s 72, s 74(1), s 76, s 117, s 117(2), s 118, Sch 2 Pt A, Pt 6
Case References:	KRL [2010] WASAT 187 PG and KRL [2010] WASAT 30
Summary:	The administrator of an estate sought payment for carer duties she performed for the represented person, in addition to the remuneration she received as the administrator. It was argued that there was no one else who could perform the personal tasks for the represented person, and it was consistent with the expressed wishes of the represented person that the administrator be paid for her time to undertake them. The represented person’s appointed guardian, the Public Advocate, supported the provision of the services to the represented person and the payment of the administrator for this purpose. The Public Trustee, in submissions sought by the Tribunal, did not oppose the payment for the services but contended there was a conflict if the administrator both set the payment rate and paid herself. The Tribunal decided that the personal services performed by the administrator were not functions performed as part of the administration of the estate and therefore the administrator could not be remunerated for them under the remuneration provision of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). The Tribunal decided that the question of the services to which the represented person should have access was a decision for the appointed guardian and not the Tribunal. In respect of the remuneration of the administrator previously ordered, the Tribunal varied the hours to be remunerated to take account of tasks, which although identified by the administrator as carer duties, in fact involved administration of the estate.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : RE KRL [2011] WASAT 172 MEMBER : MS F CHILD (MEMBER) HEARD : 17 AUGUST 2011 DELIVERED : 17 OCTOBER 2011 FILE NO/S : GAA 2486 of 2011 EX PARTE

KRL

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Application by an administrator for payment as a carer - Remuneration

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 50, s 51(2)(c), s 51(2)(e), s 72, s 74(1), s 76, s 117, s 117(2), s 118, Sch 2 Pt A, Pt 6

Result:

Application dismissed
Remuneration order varied

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person : N/A

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

KRL [2010] WASAT 187
PG…

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 Re KRL

Details

AGLC: Re KRL [2011] WASAT 172
Case: [2011] WASAT 172
Decision Date: 17 OCTOBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re KRL, the matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue was whether an administrator, who had been appointed to manage the financial and personal affairs of a person under a guardianship order, was entitled to receive remuneration as a carer. The applicant, who had been appointed as the administrator, sought to be paid for her services as a carer for the person under the guardianship order. The legal questions before the court involved interpreting the relevant statutory provisions concerning the remuneration of administrators and determining whether the administrator could claim payment for her caring activities.

The court began its analysis by examining the statutory framework governing the administration of estates of persons under guardianship orders. It considered the relevant provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2018 (Vic), which outline the duties and entitlements of administrators. The court determined that the Act did not explicitly provide for remuneration for administrators who also act as carers. The court also noted that the role of an administrator is primarily fiduciary and administrative, with the primary focus being on managing the person's financial and legal affairs. The court held that while the administrator's caring activities were commendable, they did not fall within the scope of duties for which the administrator could be remunerated under the Act.

In light of its findings, the court dismissed the application for remuneration as a carer. However, it recognised the administrator's dedication and the significant time and effort she had devoted to the role. Consequently, the court varied the remuneration order to reflect a modest increase to account for the additional time spent in the caring role, while still distinguishing it from formal carer remuneration. This decision balanced the need to compensate the administrator fairly for her administrative duties with the statutory limitations on the scope of her remuneration.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Remuneration order varied

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.