Re WA And IA Ex Parte AA And JA

The applicants, AA and JA, sought orders for guardianship, administration, and intervention in enduring powers of attorney and guardianship in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The respondents, WA and IA, opposed the applications. The applicants subsequently withdrew their applications at the hearing. The court was required to determine whether the applicants were entitled to costs under section 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and section 16(4) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). The court had to consider the factors relevant to determining costs applications, including whether the applications were properly made and pursued, and whether they were made for an improper purpose. The court also had to consider whether the costs of the parties should be paid from the estates of the proposed represented persons and whether the applicants should contribute to the legal costs ordered to be paid by the respondents.

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to costs under section 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and section 16(4) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). The court found that the applications were not properly made and pursued, and that they were made for an improper purpose. The court held that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the applications were in the best interests of the proposed represented persons, and that they had acted unreasonably in pursuing the applications. The court also held that the costs of the parties should not be paid from the estates of the proposed represented persons, and that the applicants should contribute to the legal costs ordered to be paid by the respondents.

The court ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the applications in the sum of $20,000. The court further ordered that the applicants contribute 75% of the total costs, and that the respondents contribute 25% of the total costs. The court held that the applicants' conduct warranted a contribution to the costs, but that the respondents' conduct did not warrant a departure from the usual rule that parties bear their own costs. The court held that the applicants' conduct was unreasonable and vexatious, and that it had caused the respondents unnecessary expense and inconvenience.

The court's decision highlights the importance of properly considering the best interests of proposed represented persons when making applications for guardianship and administration orders. The court also emphasises the need for applicants to act reasonably and in good faith when pursuing such applications. The court's decision also reinforces the principle that parties generally bear their own costs, unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant a departure from this rule.