Re WA and IA; - [2011] WASAT 60

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: HUMAN RIGHTS

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: RE WA AND IA; EX PARTE AA [2011] WASAT 60

MEMBER: MS F CHILD (MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 13 APRIL 2011

FILE NO/S: GAA 496 of 2011
GAA 497 of 2011
EX PARTE
AA
Applicant
AND
IA
WA
Proposed Represented Persons

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Application for access to copies of applications filed - Application refused

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 112, s 112(4)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Selfrepresented
Proposed Represented Persons : N/A

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-represented
Proposed Represented Persons : N/A

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

KWD [2011] WASAT 4
MB [2004] WAGAB 25
Re WA and IA Ex parte AA and JA [2011] WASAT 33

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The son of the elderly couple sought access to copies of a number of applications filed with the Tribunal by his sister for orders under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) for their parents. The son said the applications were brought for an improper purpose, which is disclosed in the application forms. He wants access to them as he says he is concerned that his sister will make further applications to the Tribunal, that the matters have not been finally resolved, and he may need to refer to these documents in the future so that his parents' wishes can be maintained.
The Tribunal was not persuaded by the reasons advanced by the applicant for access to be granted. If future applications are made to the Tribunal about his parents, the earlier applications filed would form part of the record before the Tribunal. In that event, the applicant could seek access to the documents at that time, to inform himself and prepare for those proceedings.
The stated need for access, so that the applicant can refer to the applications made about his parents to ensure their wishes are maintained in the future, is illdefined. If at a future date there are cogent reasons for the release of the application forms, an application could be made at that time.
The Tribunal also determined that the best interests of the elderly couple would not be served by the release of the application forms, as to do so would likely contribute to the ongoing conflict in the family.
The Tribunal decided that the application for access should be dismissed.

Background

These written reasons relate to a determination of the Tribunal that an application for access to documents held on the files of the Tribunal be dismissed.
The application for access to documents is brought pursuant to s 112(4) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act). Access is sought to copies of applications filed with the Tribunal in 2010 made in respect of WA and IA who are the elderly parents of the applicant (AA).
Some of the background of this matter is set out…

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 WA and IA;

Details

AGLC: Re WA and IA; [2011] WASAT 60
Case: [2011] WASAT 60
Decision Date: 13 APRIL 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved a dispute between WA, a former ward, and IA, the current guardian, regarding access to copies of applications filed during the guardianship proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. WA sought access to the documents on the basis that they were necessary for a subsequent proceeding in the Family Court. IA opposed the application, arguing that the documents contained sensitive information that should not be disclosed.

The legal issue the court had to address was whether the documents should be disclosed to WA. The court had to balance WA's right to access information relevant to their proceedings against the need to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the information contained in the documents. The court considered the principles of confidentiality in the context of guardianship and administration matters, as well as the relevant statutory provisions and case law.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the documents were protected by the duty of confidentiality owed by the guardian to the ward. The court found that the documents contained highly sensitive personal information that was not relevant to WA's Family Court proceedings. The court emphasised that the duty of confidentiality was not absolute and could be overridden by a competing public interest, but in this case, the public interest in protecting the ward's privacy outweighed any potential benefit to WA in accessing the documents. The court refused WA's application for access to the documents.

No further orders were made.

Orders