RM - [2020] WASAT 4 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   RM [2020] WASAT 4
MEMBER:   MR J MANSVELD, MEMBER
HEARD:   7 NOVEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   7 JANUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   GAA 2433 of 2019
RM
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Leave to apply for review of guardianship and administration orders - Leave to apply for review of administration order withdrawn by applicant - Guardian to form an opinion as to what is in the represented person's best interests taking into account the factors set out in s 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) - Leave to apply for review of guardianship order refused

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 44(5), s 51, s 86, s 87, s 95(2)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 73

Result:

Leave granted to withdraw application for leave to apply for review of administration order made on 11 June 2019 and application withdrawn
Leave to apply for review of guardianship order made on 11 June 2019 refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person

N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person

N/A

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

The matter concerning RM comes before the Tribunal in its jurisdiction under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act).
RM is 59 years of age. He has three siblings, a brother DM and sisters, LB and KK.
RM has a history with the Tribunal from July 2008.
On 3 July 2008 LB was appointed RM's plenary administrator.
On 14 October 2008 that order was revoked and the Public Trustee was appointed as RM's plenary administrator upon application by LB of her wish to be discharged from that role.
On 12 October 2009 the administration order was revoked.
On 26 October 2010 JS, a niece of RM, was appointed his plenary administrator. LB and KK were appointed his joint limited guardians to make decisions concerning his accommodation, medical treatment and support services.
On 9 April 2013 the Public Trustee was once again appointed RM's plenary administrator upon application by the Public Trustee who had raised concerns about the conduct of JS as administrator.
On 10 October 2013 KK was appointed RM's plenary administrator upon application by RM himself.
On 4 March 2014 KK was appointed RM's limited guardian to make decisions concerning his accommodation, treatment and support services. LB had sought review of the guardianship order made on 26 October 2010 as she wished to be discharged from that role.
In early 2015 KK sought review of the guardianship and administration orders on the basis that she wished to be discharged from her roles.
On 16 April 2015 AF, another of RM's nieces, was appointed his plenary administrator and LB was appointed his limited guardian with the same functions that were contained in the order made on 4 March 2014 namely decisions concerning RM's accommodation, ongoing medical treatment and support services.
In late 2017 RM sought review of the…

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 RM

Details

AGLC: RM [2020] WASAT 4
Case: [2020] WASAT 4
Decision Date: 7 JANUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of RM involved the applicant seeking leave to apply for a review of both a guardianship and administration order. The applicant, who was the daughter of the represented person, RM, sought to have the orders reviewed to challenge the decisions made regarding her mother's care and financial management. The application was brought before the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was tasked with determining the validity of the orders and the applicant's right to seek a review.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to leave to apply for a review of the administration order, which had been withdrawn by the applicant herself. Additionally, the court needed to consider the duties of the administrator under section 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), which required the guardian to form an opinion as to what was in the represented person's best interests, taking into account specified factors. The court also had to determine if the applicant was entitled to leave to apply for a review of the guardianship order.

The court held that the applicant's application for leave to apply for a review of the administration order was effectively withdrawn by the applicant herself, and thus, the application was dismissed. Regarding the guardianship order, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that there was a reasonable prospect of success in a review of the order. The court emphasised that the guardian had exercised their discretion in accordance with the statutory requirements, and there was no evidence to suggest that the guardian's decision was flawed or not in the represented person's best interests. Consequently, the court refused the applicant leave to apply for a review of the guardianship order. The court's decision was based on the lack of sufficient grounds to warrant a review and the guardian's adherence to the legislative framework governing their duties.

Orders