RM - [2024] WASAT 86 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   RM [2024] WASAT 86
MEMBER:   MS J DE KLERK, MEMBER
HEARD:   5 JUNE 2024
DELIVERED          :   13 JUNE 2024
PUBLISHED           :   21 AUGUST 2024
FILE NO/S:   GAA 2353 of 2024

RM
Represented Person
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
Applicant

Catchwords:

Application for review of a guardianship order - Mental illness with partial insight - Suitability of parents as guardian - Wishes of the represented person - Preservation of supportive relationships - Best interests of the represented person - Public advocate appointed limited guardian

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 40, s 51, s 86
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)

Result:

Public Advocate appointed limited guardian

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	In Person
Applicant	:	In Person (via Teams link)

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	N/A

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

(These reasons were delivered orally on 13 June 2024 and have been taken from the transcript. They have been edited only to anonymise parties, add headings, correct grammatical errors and some infelicity of expression, without variation to the substance thereof. A request for written reasons was received on 17 July 2024 and these reasons are provided in response.)

Introduction

This is an application brought by [Mental Health Service], seeking the review of a guardianship order in respect of RM (represented person). RM is also subject to an administration order which was not for review.
A guardian is a substitute decision-maker who makes certain personal decisions for someone who the Tribunal finds is unable to make those decisions for themselves.

Background

On 29 June 2022, the Tribunal appointed RM's mother, NM, as RM's limited guardian with decision-making functions, including whether RM should work, to make treatment decisions, to determine the contact he should have with others, the services which he should have access to, and as his next friend in case RM needed legal help.
RM is a 26-year-old man who, according to available reports, has a long history of involvement with mental health services, including a number of previous admissions to hospital as an involuntary patient.
RM's current diagnosis is recorded as treatment-resistant schizophrenia. RM's most recent hospital admission was to [Hospital A]. A discharge summary noted that in 2023 RM had been experiencing significant side effects from clozapine treatment, and that NM had requested a trial involving stopping the clozapine and trialling a different medication. This trial appears to have been agreed to by RM's treating team. Unfortunately, RM experienced a deterioration in his condition and was admitted to hospital in a catatonic state on 13 December 2023.
RM was recommenced on clozapine, with doses gradually titrated up and combined with another medicine called cariprazine. RM's mental state was observed to have improved on this treatment, and he was discharged from hospital after 58 days on 8 February 2024.
RM receives significant support from both his parents, his father PM, who he currently lives with, as well as his mother, NM.
The application for review was lodged by [suburb] Community Mental Health on 10 May 2024, and asserted that since discharge in February, RM had been placing himself at risk of misadventure or accidental death due to walking the streets at night and early hours of the morning, including on major highways.
A change in circumstances application had been lodged with the National Disability Insurance Service (NDIS), in the hope that RM's NDIS funding would be increased to allow increased supports for RM, including an occupational therapist (OT), to develop structure and boundaries with RM, particularly around night-time, as well as supported independent living funding for specialised accommodation.
A hearing for this matter took place on 5 June 2024.
For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied, and I find that RM is a person for whom I can and need to appoint the Office of the Public Advocate (Public Advocate) as limited guardian, with decision-making functions in relation to medical treatment, services, accommodation, and consent for restrictive practices for NDIS.
The guardianship order that was made on 29 June 2022 will be revoked. The order will be due for a review in two years.

Relevant Principles

In making this decision, the Tribunal's primary concern must be the best interests of the person concerned. Every person is presumed capable of looking after their own health and safety, and of making reasonable judgments in matters relating to their person and affairs. Orders may not be made where there is an alternative means of meeting someone's needs that is less restrictive on their freedom of decision and action, and where orders are made, they must be in terms that impose the least restrictions on the person's freedom, and we must ascertain the views and wishes of the person concerned.

What the Tribunal must be satisfied of

Before appointing a guardian, or reappointing a guardian, the Tribunal must be satisfied first that the person for whom the order is sought remains either incapable of looking after their own health and safety, or unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their person, or in need of oversight, care or control in the interest of their own health and safety, or for the protection of others. Secondly, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the person is in need of a guardian.

Documentary evidence

The Tribunal received the following written submissions and reports. There was an application form lodged on 10 May 2024; a letter to the Tribunal, dated 15 May; a service provider report, dated 16 May; and a medical report, dated 24 May, all from Dr K, registrar at [suburb] Community Mental Health; a discharge summary, dated 8 February 2024, relating to a 40-day admission at [Hospital A] from 13 December 2023 until 8 February 2024 under the care of Dr G, consultant psychiatrist; a service provider report, dated 16 May 2024, from Ms F, registered nurse and case manager, [suburb] Community Mental Health; a service provider report, dated 27 May 2024, from Ms S, support coordinator and recovery coach; various clinical notes from [suburb] Community Mental Health, including mental health emergency response line and mental health triage notes.
During the hearing further documents were handed up, including a letter to the Tribunal dated 1 June 2024 from PM; a letter to RM, dated 31 May 2024, from KC, general manager at [Disability Service]; and a supported accommodation referral form from Ms S.
In her letter, Dr G wrote that RM was known to services, with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia and had multiple admissions under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA).
In terms of decision-making capacity, the doctor's medical report said she had known RM for six months in 2022, as well as having seen him three times in the past 12 months. Her opinion was that RM was incapable of making complex financial decisions and legal decisions, and also that RM was not capable of personal decision-making due to being unable to weigh the pros and cons of treatment and make rational decisions. The doctor said RM had partial insight into his illness and psychosocial needs but did not acknowledge that he needed supports with activities of daily living due to his illness, and that he did not understand the seriousness of risks due to his behaviours, for example, refusing to move back to his mother's where he had been adequately supervised, although he was engaging well with some supports.
The discharge summary relating to the 40-day admission at [Hospital A] under the care of Dr G, consultant psychiatrist, confirmed a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia and said that in recent months RM had been weaned off clozapine and trialled on amisulpride treatment. Unfortunately, this had resulted in a deterioration in condition, with RM being observed responding to non-apparent stimuli and becoming catatonic, leading to admission where clozapine treatment was restarted, with the addition of cariprazine.
In her service provider report, Ms F gave an opinion that was consistent with Dr G and noted the support that RM receives from NM and PM. In her service provider report, Ms S also noted the support RM received from both parents. In addition, Ms S noted that whilst RM had the support of family, he was socially isolated and did not have close friends. Ms S also noted that RM's lack of insight into his psychosocial disability meant that he was not able to comprehend the impacts of his behaviors on himself and on others.
This was reflected in the supports RM was receiving. RM was willing to accept help from support workers but was resistant to input from an OT or a psychologist, or for night-time support due to his wandering behaviours at night. The various clinical notes from [suburb] Community Mental Health, including the mental health emergency response line and mental health triage notes, illustrated a pattern of contact from February 2024 until May 2024 between RM's parents and after-hours crisis mental health services, ambulance and police services.
There were multiple instances of, at times NM, but more often PM, requesting urgent mental health intervention or medication review from mental health staff or police, or to take RM to hospital or to make him go home. Responses from mental health staff seemed to be consistently encouraging meeting during the day to work out a plan to manage the issue.
Police also appeared to be seeking that a plan be devised. There were multiple instances of police declining to intervene because there were no welfare concerns from their perspective, and that they had no cause to apprehend RM under the Mental Health Act. The requests were usually in the context of RM walking the streets of Northbridge or the Tonkin Highway at night with PM following him in the car, sometimes for hours on end so that he could monitor RM's safety. PM was reported to be upset during a number of these calls.
In his letter, PM detailed his views and concerns and what he considered should be happening, including that he thought he should have guardianship as this would mean the police would have to assist him to control RM.
In a letter to RM from KC, there was a confirmation that they provided core support services to RM and were supportive of NM's involvement. A support accommodation referral form and related paperwork from Ms S was also handed up.

Evidence obtained at hearing

I heard evidence in person at a hearing on 5 June 2024 from RM, the represented person; from NM, RM's mother; PM, RM's father; Ms S, support coordinator and recovery coach; and the investigator from the Public Advocate. Dr K attended the hearing via a Teams link on behalf of the applicant.
During the hearing I summarised the application, the medical report, service provider reports, discharge summary and the various clinical records from [suburb] Community Mental Health and sought everyone's views about the content of those reports, particularly with regard to each of their views about RM's decision-making capacity. NM gave evidence that indicated agreement with the various reports. NM said she had come to terms with RM having a diagnosis of schizophrenia and seemed to agree that because of his symptoms RM did not have capacity to make certain personal decisions.
NM spoke about a brief period during RM's most recent hospitalisation where RM was off antipsychotics and receiving lorazepam, and where she described RM as functioning normally, talking and interacting with family. NM said she had to put her faith in the professionals. In terms of decision-making, NM said she had never needed to use some of the decision-making powers that were delegated to her in the 2022 guardianship order. Whilst RM had worked for a period, her authority had not been required. NM had also never needed to use the next friend or contact functions.
NM agreed that RM needed a decision-maker in relation to medical treatment, accommodation, services and restrictive practices. NM proposed herself for reappointment, although also commented 'whatever the doctors recommend'. NM disagreed with a suggestion that she had not shared adequate information with PM regarding RM's medical treatment, commenting that she provided PM with information by phone or text, acknowledging that PM's point of views about RM's care and treatment were very different to hers, and that it was her view that PM chose not to attend medical appointments or blood tests because he was too busy at work.
PM gave evidence that while he did believe something was going on, he was not 100% sure about whether RM did have schizophrenia and said RM had good days and bad days. In relation to capacity for decision-making, PM said that RM was intelligent, not stupid and was capable of making decisions about certain things, not all things, such as making his breakfast. RM had told him many times that he did not need medication.
PM's view was that working out treatment for RM was a crucial issue. PM also said it was crucial that RM wanted to live with him, and that he believed if RM stayed somewhere else on a Friday and Saturday night, that might help.
PM spoke about being able to find work for RM in 2023, working for two days a week with an understanding friend. PM agreed that the repeated incidents of RM wandering at night had caused significant stress and worry. PM appeared to agree with the contents of the various mental health emergency response line and triage team notes, which recorded a number of incidents where PM had become upset with police and mental health staff when his requests for intervention, such as requests that RM be taken to hospital, were refused.
PM explained that some nights they would be out from 9.00 pm until 5.00 am the next morning, with PM staying with RM to protect him and make sure he was safe. He said it was crucial that last Saturday night at around 11.30 pm it had started to rain, and RM had initially wanted to go to Northbridge, but changed his mind and got in the car and came home. When asked about whether RM needed a decision-maker in relation to medical treatment, accommodation, services and restrictive practices, it was unclear what PM's exact views were, as his answers tended to give details that did not directly relate to the questions asked, such as talking about what RM had wanted to do and where he had wanted to go in recent days.
PM proposed himself for appointment. He said that after the guardianship hearing in 2022 he had left things up to NM, and appeared to agree that he and NM had differing views about what was best for RM. PM did not agree that NM had kept him updated about RM's treatment, and also disagreed that he had chosen not to attend appointments with RM. During the hearing, PM handed up a letter which set out his views, and he said the letter had been written with the assistance of his legal team. He said a letter would be going to the Commissioner of Police and also the District Office to put something in place for keeping RM safe.
Ms S gave evidence that she and a colleague, B, had been working with RM for over one and a half years. Ms S said she was not medically trained, but had observed negative symptoms as described in assessments.
Ms S agreed that RM needed a guardian to make decisions about services, accommodation and restrictive practices, but was unable to comment about whether RM needed a medical treatment guardian because her focus was on working with RM on the goals outlined in the functional capacity assessment.
Regarding services, Ms S confirmed that a change of circumstances application was on foot with the NDIS, with the aim of getting increased supports for RM, including a behaviour support plan. Current support workers provided support four hours per day, five or six days a week for daily needs, including prompting for meal preparation and shopping. Ms S spoke about her positive working relationship with NM and noted that both PM and NM were dedicated parents. It was her view that RM's parents were best placed to act in the role of guardian, although she acknowledged this decision was ultimately a matter for the Tribunal.
RM gave evidence that he believed he could make his own decisions and therefore did not need a guardian. If a guardian was appointed, RM's preference was that his father, PM, should be appointed. RM agreed that his parents, NM and PM, were the two most important people in his life.
On behalf of the applicant, Dr G confirmed that she had worked with RM previously at [suburb] clinic, as well as currently.
RM had been doing really well since discharge in February and had been complying with treatment, to the extent that she was able to write a letter supporting RM to travel overseas with NM recently for a holiday. The doctor noted that RM's parents were highly supportive and involved in RM's care.
In regard to RM's mental health, Dr G confirmed RM's condition as chronic schizophrenia and, whilst stable, noted that RM continued to experience negative symptoms, which included disorganisation, amotivation and poverty of thought, resulting in the need for prompting for various activities of daily living, including meals, showering, medications and outings. Dr G spoke about how RM's symptoms impacted on his decision-making and said that RM was unable to weigh up the pros and cons of decisions due to the impact of the negative symptoms.
Dr G said that the treating team's main concern was about RM's accommodation. In the past there had been a fifty-fifty arrangement between NM and PM which seemed to work well, with NM at the time being able to closely monitor waking and sleeping times. Since moving to live with PM only, despite PM's best efforts, he had unfortunately been unable to implement plans, particularly regarding sleep, and that RM was now refusing to listen to either of his parents, meaning that the whole family was now under stress. Poor sleep was serious in RM's case because it can lead to impaired functioning and also places him at increased risk of experiencing a psychotic relapse.
RM's frequent decisions to leave home and walk the streets at night place not only himself at risk of misadventure, including death, but also place his loved ones at risk because they would often follow RM to try to keep him safe and get him home safely. The doctor had counted at least 50 that is five, zero Psychiatric Services Online Information System (PSOLIS) contacts between RM's family since February of this year in response to crisis, as well as concerned emails from the mental health emergency response line, ambulance services and police, who were all requesting that the service make a workable plan.
The current situation places the family in a position of constant hypervigilance and stress. When asked whether RM's wandering behaviour was behavioural rather than due to his mental illness, the doctor clarified that her conclusion that RM's wandering was behaviourally driven reflected that the behaviour was not related to psychosis, for example, there were no voices telling RM to do it; however, it was her opinion that there were other factors in play; RM showing poor judgment as a result of the lack of insight into the extent of his condition, combined with severe negative symptoms, as well as RM wanting independence or to individuate from his family.
Dr G's view was that to reduce stress and conflict, an independent guardian would be best for RM to make services, medical treatment, accommodation and restrictive practice decisions.
The Investigator from the Public Advocate said that the medical evidence showed RM was a person for whom the guardian could be appointed, and there was a need. The investigator said it was clear that both NM and PM wanted what was best for RM. Regarding accommodation, the investigator noted that RM was currently spending some days at NM's house but had expressed a clear preference to live with PM and had voted with his feet by remaining there.

RM enjoyed the activity at his father's house and going out at night. PM and NM were both supportive of proposals for respite and supported independent living accommodation options, pending the outcome of the change in circumstances application, and the investigator further noted that RM was currently enjoying rent-free living, which would change if he was to move to supported independent living, although that option would facilitate independence.
The investigator said it was difficult to come to a view about who the guardian should be, and that he did not have a firm view about whether NM, PM or the Public Advocate should be appointed. PM proposed himself, as RM was living with him, and he was the primary caregiver currently. PM believed guardianship would increase his authority with the police and medical teams around RM's wandering at night. PM believed if he was guardian, the police would do what he wanted. The investigator was sceptical about whether an independent appointment would be required, saying that RM was likely to vote with his feet in terms of accommodation and that it may add a level of bureaucracy.
The investigator acknowledged that if NM or PM made a decision against RM's wishes, this could damage their relationship. The investigator noted that the Public Advocate may well also encounter challenges if RM did not agree with decisions made, particularly around accommodation and services. Split functions between the Public Advocate and parents were also a possible option. The investigator noted that there was also a potential compatibility question for the guardian in terms of being compatible with NM as administrator.
Regarding RM wandering at night and relating to risk, the investigator said it was unrealistic to think that a guardian would improve what the health service and police would do, as services have different thresholds in terms of health and safety and when to intervene. The investigator believed RM's night-wandering had dissipated in recent weeks, after being told by a case manager that he might end up in hospital. In terms of possible conflict between NM and PM, the investigator said PM would like to know more about RM's finances and also medical treatment. The investigator thought there may be frustration with the medical team and NM because of NM's request to stop RM's clozapine in 2023.
The investigator has spoken to RM, who was very clear in his wish not to move to respite or other accommodation, and that he wished to remain living with his father. The investigator wondered whether this was a sustainable option in the long-term, given carer burnout and the inability to cope, and whether PM would be able to make that decision. In terms of decision-making functions, the investigator said there did not seem to be a current need for work, next friend or contact functions, and recommended that there was a current need for medical treatment, accommodation services and restrictive practice functions, because if RM moved to supported independent living in future, he would require a behaviour support plan and most likely would need restrictive practices given his behaviours, such as potentially locking the door at night.

Mental disability

In terms of findings, having regard to the evidence as I summarised earlier, I would firstly like to acknowledge that RM has made it clear that he believed he had the capacity to make his own personal decisions. RM did not say whether or not he agreed with his current diagnosis. I further acknowledge that PM was also 100% not sure about RM's diagnosis and made it clear that he believed RM was capable of making some decisions, but not all.
In this case, the weight of the medical and allied health evidence provided is consistent and cogent, in my view. Accordingly, I find that RM has an established diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. That is because I accept the contents of the letter and reports provided from Dr G in this regard, as well as her oral evidence. The diagnosis is consistent with the discharge summary from [Hospital A], the various clinical records from [suburb], and consistent with the observations in the service provider reports provided by Ms F and Ms S.

Capacity

In terms of the issue of decision-making capacity we start from the presumption that every person has the ability to make reasonable judgments in relation to their person, and then look at the evidence before the Tribunal to see whether or not it is sufficient to set aside that presumption and positively establish that RM is unable to make such reasonable decisions. I am satisfied that RM is unable to make reasonable decisions in relation to his person because I accept the clinical opinion of Dr G that:
(a)RM continues to experience negative symptoms, including disorganisation, amotivation and poverty of thought, resulting in the need for prompting for activities of daily living, such as meals, showering, medications and outings. RM's symptoms impact on his decision-making ability.
(b)RM is unable to weigh up the pros and cons of decisions due to the impact of negative symptoms. RM has partial insight into his illness and psychosocial needs but does not acknowledge that he needs support with activities of daily living due to mental illness.
(c)RM does not understand the seriousness of risks due to his behaviours, such as sleeping during the day and wandering the streets at night.
Dr G's opinion is consistent with the opinions contained in the service provider reports provided by Ms F and Ms S.

Need for a guardian

In terms of need, in determining whether RM is in need of a guardian, the Tribunal must first consider whether his needs can be met in any way that is less restrictive on his freedom than a formal appointment. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is no less restrictive means available than a formal appointment, because I have already accepted the weight of the medical and allied health evidence and made findings that RM does not have the capacity to make reasonable decisions himself.
There is no enduring power of guardianship in existence, and whilst RM has the support of both his parents, I am satisfied that informal decision-making arrangements would not work. That is because there is clear evidence that RM does not listen to his parents, and also because NM and PM both seem to acknowledge that their views on what is best for RM can vary. Further, a formal appointment is required, in my view, to provide clarity to the health professionals and services who work with RM about who the decision-maker is.
Given my finding that RM no longer has capacity to make his own personal decisions and that there is not a less restrictive option, I am satisfied that there is no less restrictive means, and RM is in need of a guardian to make personal decisions, with functions limited to medical treatment, accommodation services and restrictive practices.

RM's views and wishes

The Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) requires the Tribunal, as far as possible, to ascertain the views and wishes of the person concerned. During the hearing, RM expressed the view that he could make his own personal decisions, and he did not believe he needed a guardian. If a guardian was appointed, his preference was for his father, PM. RM also made it clear that he wished to continue living with his father.
In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is not in RM's best interest to apply those views and wishes in determining this application, and that he would benefit from an independent decision-maker.

Who should be RM's guardian

I have given careful consideration to whether either NM or PM should be appointed as guardian. It is clear on the evidence that both parents provide a high level of support to RM, and they are clearly devoted to him. NM and PM are not only RM's main supports but are the two most important people to him in his life.
The evidence was that aside from family relationships, RM is socially isolated and does not have close friends. RM is living with a severe and enduring condition, which comes with consequences and needs which he only has partial insight into. It is clear on the evidence that RM has unfortunately been making decisions that are clearly not in his own best interests. For example, a poor sleep routine. Dr G explained that poor sleep was serious in RM's case because it can lead to impaired functioning, and also places him at increased risk of experiencing a psychotic relapse.
It was noted that RM's sleep had been adequately monitored in the past when living with NM, but unfortunately his routine has deteriorated since moving in with PM. RM's frequent decisions to leave home and walk the streets at night place not only himself at risk of misadventure, including death, but also place his loved ones under considerable stress and anxiety, as well as risk, because, for example, PM often follows RM to try and keep him safe and get him home safely.
There have been over 50 PSOLIS records of contact between RM's family and mental health crisis, police and ambulance services since February 2024. This is evidence of a family in a serious crisis, and it is clear that the current situation is not sustainable. Dr G gave the opinion that the need for appropriate accommodation for RM that meets his complex needs is the primary concern from the treating team's perspective, and there is an application on foot seeking more funding for this. It is likely, in my view, that the guardian will soon be required to decide, in consultation with RM, his family and supports, about what is in his best interests in terms of accommodation.
If either NM or PM were the decision-maker, it is my view there would be a risk that their relationship with RM would be negatively affected. This is unacceptable, in my view.
The Public Advocate can only be appointed as guardian if there was no one else who was suitable and willing to act in the role. Both NM and PM are clearly willing to act in the role; however, it is my view that neither of them is suitable because I consider there is an unacceptable risk that their relationship with RM would be damaged if they were placed in the position of having to make a decision against RM's wishes.
RM is particularly vulnerable because he is a young adult who is socially isolated and living with a significant condition, which he only has partial insight into. NM and PM are his main supports and the two people he is closest to in this world, and it would not be in RM's best interest if those key relationships were placed at risk.

Review period

The Tribunal is required to nominate a period of time by which the review of the order must be made. The maximum time period allowed by the legislation is five years. In this case, I consider that it is appropriate to nominate a period of two years.
RM will ultimately choose whether or not he accepts support that is offered to him via NDIS, and whether he chooses to work towards improving his psychosocial functioning. It is my view that if RM decides to accept the appropriate support and do that work, he may in future be able to make his own decisions; therefore, it is prudent to review the orders sooner than in five years' time to see whether they are working in RM's best interests and whether or not they are still required.

Orders

The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [RM] is:
(a)incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(b)unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(c)in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety; and
(d)in need of a guardian.

The Tribunal orders:
Guardianship
The guardianship order dated 29 June 2022 is revoked and substituted with an order in the following terms:
1.The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:
(a)to decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;
(b)to decide with whom the represented person is to live;
(c)to make treatment decisions for the represented person, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA);
(d)to determine the services to which the represented person should have access; and
(e)to decide whether to give or withhold consent to the use of any restrictive practices proposed in any behaviour support plan developed from time to time for the represented person in compliance with the requirements of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Restrictive Practices and Behaviour Support) Rules 2018.

2.The Tribunal approves delegation by the Public Advocate of her functions as guardian of the represented person to an officer or employee employed in the Office of the Public Advocate.
3.The guardianship order is to be reviewed by 13 June 2026.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS J DE KLERK, MEMBER
21 AUGUST 2024