RM

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court was whether the applicant was entitled to leave to apply for a review of the administration order, which had been withdrawn by the applicant herself.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court held that the applicant's application for leave to apply for a review of the administration order was effectively withdrawn by the applicant herself, and thus, the application was dismissed.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.