RN
[2025] WASAT 46
•20 MAY 2025
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION: RN [2025] WASAT 46
MEMBER: MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
HEARD: 29 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED : 20 MAY 2025
FILE NO/S: GAA 576 of 2025
GAA 649 of 2025
RN
Represented Person
AN
Applicant
Catchwords:
Guardianship - Administration - Unclear diagnosis - Delusional disorder - Histrionic personality disorder - Low average IQ - Victim of scam - Susceptibility to exploitation - Involvement in money laundering scheme - Revocation of enduring power of attorney and enduring power of guardianship - Appointment of private administrator and private guardian
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s3, s43(1)(b)(i), s43(1)(b)(ii), s43(1)(b)(iii), s44(1), s51(2), s64, s64(1)(a), s65, s68(1), s68(1)(c), s68(1)(d), s68(3)(a), s68(3)(b), s68(3)(d), s110F, s100ZD
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2), s 32(4)
Result:
Enduring power of attorney revoked
Private administrator appointed
Enduring power of guardianship revoked
Private guardian appointed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Represented Person | : | In Person |
| Applicant | : | In Person |
Solicitors:
| Represented Person | : | N/A |
| Applicant | : | N/A |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
FY [2019] WASAT 118
SMM [2020] WASAT 85
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
RN is a victim of significant financial exploitation. Over seven years, it is estimated that she has given at least $1 million, but possibly more, to a scammer based on threats that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) will deport her from Australia. In addition to sending money, she has been convinced by the scammer to mortgage her home and open bank accounts in her name for the scammer to use to launder money.
In January 2025, she believed that the AFP demanded that she pay $26,000. She became suicidal and was admitted to Hospital A where she was diagnosed with a delusional disorder. After leaving Hospital A, RN signed an enduring power of attorney and an enduring power of guardianship appointing her daughter AN as her attorney and guardian (EPA and EPG respectively).
A few weeks later, RN was assessed by Dr A who recommended she be admitted to Hospital B, where she was diagnosed as having a low average IQ and a histrionic personality disorder.
AN applied to the Tribunal to seek orders that a guardian and an administrator be appointed for RN. The Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee as RN's interim administrator to protect and secure her estate until the matter was heard.
I am satisfied that RN lacks the capacity to make personal and financial decisions. I have decided to revoke the EPA and EPG as I am not satisfied that those documents will provide sufficient protection for RN. I will appoint AN as her guardian and administrator. These are my reasons.
Principles to be observed by the Tribunal
The primary concern of the Tribunal when making decisions under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) is the best interests of the person for whom the application was made.
The starting point for the Tribunal is that every person is presumed to be capable of looking after their own health and safety, managing their own affairs and making reasonable judgments about matters relating to their estate and their person. This is referred to as the 'presumption of capacity' and if set aside by clear and cogent evidence, the Tribunal can consider making guardianship and administration orders.
The Tribunal must consider whether RN's needs could be met by other means less restrictive on her freedom of decision and action. If the Tribunal makes an order, the order needs to impose the least restrictions possible on her. The Tribunal must also take into account RN's views and wishes.
The Tribunal will take all facts and circumstances into account when determining RN's best interests. The Tribunal may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit,[1] and is not bound by rules of evidence,[2] which ensures, as far as possible, that all relevant information can be considered by the Tribunal to make the correct decision in RN's best interests.
[1] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), s 32(4).
[2] SAT Act, s 32(2).
Issues
When deciding whether to appoint a guardian or an administrator, the Tribunal must determine three issues. First, can the Tribunal make a finding that RN lacks the capacity to make decisions about her personal and financial matters in accordance with the tests for incapacity set out in the GA Act? Second, if the answer is yes, does the Tribunal need to make an order, or is there is another way for decisions to be made for RN that is less restrictive on her freedom of decision and action? Thirdly, if the Tribunal needs to make an order, who will be the guardian or administrator, what functions or powers do they require, and when will the orders be reviewed?
The most contentious issue in this matter is whether RN has a 'mental disability' which is a requirement of the GA Act in order to appoint an administrator.
RN and her daughter AN attended the Tribunal hearing of 29 April 2025. Ms T, an investigator advocate from the Office of the Public Advocate (Investigator), also attended to advocate for RN in her best interests.
I have taken into account the oral evidence given at the hearing and the written evidence filed in the proceedings. The relevant features are summarised in these reasons.
Findings of fact
The facts set out in [15] to [27] below are not controversial and I make findings in accordance with those facts.
RN is currently aged in her 60s. She was born overseas and was the eldest of 12 children. She came to Australia in 1981 aged 22. Her husband, who was significantly older than she was, was an accountant and managed their finances. RN was in her 40s when she was widowed.
In 2017, RN formed an online relationship with a man who told her that he would travel to Western Australia to meet her. When she arrived at the airport, she received an email from the 'Immigration Department' stating that the man had been detained for bringing gold and diamonds into Western Australia worth over $3 million (Assets). The Assets had been removed from his possession and were left at the airport in RN's name.
Over the next seven years, the scammer masqueraded as a lawyer known as SA and manipulated RN into paying various 'bills', 'fees', 'GST', 'taxes' and 'stamp duty' for her to obtain the Assets. SA told RN that if she did not pay, the AFP would deport her back to her country of origin and she would lose her Australian citizenship. RN received messages with the AFP logo supporting SA's claim.
RN believed the threats and continued to pay SA, who would call and message her multiple times each day. In addition to sending the scammer most of her superannuation, mortgaging her home and taking out a personal loan, she also borrowed money from various 'male suitors' to pay to the scammer.
Gradually she started sending more money, sometimes up to $10,000 or more. She was told to pay money to around 20 different bank accounts and was contacted by the real AFP about concerns that she was participating in money laundering. Three cybercrime reports have been made about RN and a bank that RN previously banked with closed her accounts because they detected money laundering activity on those accounts.
About five years ago, AN and her brother BN became aware that RN had been sending money to the scammer. They told her it was a scam and RN promised she would not send any more money, but she continued to do so. RN's current partner, ER, told her to block SA's number but she was too afraid of being deported.
Over the years of being scammed, RN has fallen out with friends, her family, her church, and has become increasingly isolated. She described that during this time, she felt like she was brainwashed. RN has a history of giving money to people, as because she married a foreigner, people from her community believed that she was wealthy. They would make requests for money and she would comply.
In January 2025, AN told RN that she would cease contact with her if RN did not block the scammer. RN's fear of losing her relationship with her daughter was greater than her fear of being deported. RN moved in with AN for a short period of time and AN helped her buy a new phone, arranged a new phone number and took RN to the police. She was discharged from Hospital A to AN's home until she was admitted to Hospital B.
In February, following her discharge from Hospital B, RN received mail from SA, attempting to persuade her to contact him. He claimed that he had resolved the issues with the Assets and he was able to spend the money, but he wanted her to be able to spend it too. Fortunately, AN was with RN when she opened the mail, so AN confiscated it and ensured that RN did not contact the scammer.
In March, RN's neighbour V pressured and intimidated her into agreeing to kill a large tree in the back garden of her property. RN was scared as V had threatened legal action, however the tree poses no hazards and does not encroach onto V's property. RN had to take a day off work due to stress as V persuaded her to bring multiple contractors onto her property to provide quotes to cut down and poison the tree.
In April, around two weeks prior to the Tribunal hearing, a tow truck arrived at RN's home with the intention of taking her car. RN was at her partner ER's home at the time, and one of the boarders living in her home gave the tow truck driver her new telephone number. Shortly thereafter, the messages from SA started again, including threats to publish nude photos of RN on social media if she did not send him money. This was the first time that someone associated with the scam had approached RN (or specifically, her home) in Western Australia.
RN has been assessed by a number of psychiatrists since January 2025 and her diagnosis has evolved over time. Dr J provided the initial diagnosis of delusional disorder.[3] Next, Dr A did not agree with the diagnosis of delusional disorder and noted RN's irrational thoughts relating to her belief that gold and diamonds had been waiting for her at the airport for seven years. Dr A suggested the possibility of the onset of frontotemporal dementia.[4] Dr A recommended that RN be hospitalised for further testing and longitudinal assessment under the care of Dr F, who diagnosed RN as having low average IQ and histrionic personality disorder at Hospital B. Dr TS, who is the RN's treating psychiatrist at the Older Adult Mental Health Service, has diagnosed her with an adjustment disorder.
[3] Dr J at Hospital A, set out in discharge summary dated 26 January 2025.
[4] Letter of Dr A dated 16 February 2025 prepared following assessment with RN on 5 February 2025 and Mental Health Assessment dated 5 February 2025 prepared by the Suburb D Older Adult Mental Health Service.
In addition, RN suffered a stroke in 2017, which she believed at the time was a panic attack. As at the date of the hearing, a further PET scan was scheduled to be undertaken to explore whether there are any structural changes to her brain.
RN's views and wishes
The Tribunal must take RN's views and wishes into account, as expressed, or as gathered from her previous actions. RN's wish in January 2025, as recorded in the EPA and EPG, was that AN would manage her finances and personal matters. RN confirmed this at the hearing and told me that she wants her daughter AN to look after her finances and make all decisions for her.
For the reasons set out below, I will revoke the EPA and EPG as I do not consider that those documents are an appropriate way for decisions to be made for RN. However, I will give effect to RN's wish that AN be her substitute decision-maker as I have found AN to be suitable to act as the guardian and administrator.
I will now turn to discuss RN's capacity.
Issue - does RN lack the capacity to make her own decisions about her personal and financial matters?
I will first examine RN's capacity to make decisions about her financial matters, or her 'estate'. To appoint an administrator for RN, s 64 of the GA Act requires that I must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that she is currently unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of her estate.[5] This requires, first, that RN has a mental disability and second, that the mental disability causes her to be unable to manage her estate.
Does RN have a mental disability?
[5] GA Act, s 64(1)(a).
The term 'mental disability' is defined in the GA Act and includes certain disabilities such as an intellectual disability, a psychiatric condition, dementia, and acquired brain injury.[6] The definition is inclusive and was described by the Full Tribunal in the case of FY as follows:[7]
The ordinary meaning of the term 'mental disability' in the GA Act thus contemplates that a person's mind is affected by an impairment, incapacity or inability to function in a manner, or within a range, considered normal, or which is objectively measurable. A mental disability may manifest in a variety of ways, including as a disturbance or limitation in a person's thought processes or their cognitive ability, in their perceptions of reality, emotions or judgments, in disturbed behaviour or in learning difficulties.
…
… the definition of 'mental disability' does not require any precise degree of mental disability, measured by reference to some medical or scientific benchmark. That no doubt reflects the fact that a person's mental ability may be located at any one of an infinite number of points along a spectrum, or points plotted on a grid, which represents the various aspects of cognitive functioning, including the speed and ease of information processing, problem solving, reasoning, and memory. For the purposes of s 64 of the GA Act, the only relevant measure, in relation to a person with a 'mental disability', is whether the person is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of their estate.
…
… A finding that a person has a 'mental disability' may, of course, be referrable to the existence of one, or a combination of more than one, identified medical conditions. In other cases, the underlying cause of a person's mental disability may not be entirely clear, or susceptible to a particular medical diagnosis, but the existence of the mental disability may be beyond doubt.
[6] GA Act, s 3.
[7] FY [2019] WASAT 118 (FY) at [27], [31] and [32].
Having regard to the evidence adduced in the present case, which is discussed in detail below, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, and I find, that RN is a person who has a mental disability, which is the combination of the personality disorder, a low average IQ and an abnormal susceptibility to being exploited, financially or otherwise.
The evidence upon which I have placed the greatest weight is the evidence of Dr F, who observed RN during the 18-day admission to Hospital B. While under Dr F's care, RN participated in an assessment by a neuropsychologist, organic screening and an MRI, which did not detect any abnormality. Dr F concluded that RN does not have a mental health disorder, neurodegenerative disorder or dementia, or a psychotic illness. Dr F's view is that RN's presentation was in keeping with a situational crisis on a background of low average IQ, as victim of financial abuse with histrionic personality disorder and extreme vulnerability.
Personality disorder
Dr F opined that RN's childhood, involving trauma and poverty, is the cause of her histrionic personality. A personality disorder is:[8]
… an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.
[8] American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, Washington, DC: 2013 (DSM5), page 645.
Histrionic personality disorder is described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM5), as a pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking behaviour where:[9]
Individuals with histrionic personality disorder are uncomfortable or feel unappreciated if they are not the centre of attention … Often lively and dramatic, they tend to draw attention to themselves and may initially charm new acquaintances by their enthusiasm, apparent openness, or flirtatiousness … If they are not the centre of attention, they may do something dramatic (e.g., make up stories, create a scene) to draw the focus of attention to themselves.
…
… Individuals with this disorder are characterized by self‑dramatization, theatricality, and an exaggerated expression of emotion (Criterion 6). They may embarrass friends and acquaintances by an excessive public display of emotions (e.g., embracing casual acquaintances with excessive ardour, sobbing uncontrollably on minor sentimental occasions, having temper tantrums). However, their emotions often seem to be turned on and off too quickly to be deeply felt, which may lead others to accuse the individual of faking these feelings.
Individuals with histrionic personality disorder have a high degree of suggestibility (Criterion 7). Their opinions and feelings are easily influenced by others and by current fads. They may be overly trusting, especially of strong authority figures whom they see as magically solving their problems …
…
These individuals may also alienate friends with demands for constant attention. They often become depressed and upset when they are not the centre of attention. They may crave novelty, stimulation, and excitement and have a tendency to become bored with their usual routine. These individuals are often intolerant of, or frustrated by, situations that involve delayed gratification, and their actions are often directed at obtaining immediate satisfaction …
The actual risk of suicide is not known, but clinical experience suggests that individuals with this disorder are at increased risk for suicidal gestures and threats to get attention and coerce better caregiving …
[9] DSM5, page 667 - 668.
It is convenient to set out key aspects of Dr F's formulation of RN:
[RN] is a … widow, mother of adult children, with a prejudicial upbringing that in my opinion underlies her histrionic personality traits.
She presented after receiving threats of deportation and loss of citizenship from an online scam that had been going for the past 7 years.
There is substantial estrangement within her family system, both from her siblings of which some live here, and her children. In part this estrangement has been from her behaviour when the children were growing up prior to the death of [RN's] husband … whilst they were in school, where [RN] throughout the marriage would be generous with her time, and give money away to people outside of the family … [RN's children] became quite concerned that despite [RN] reaching out some 5 years ago regarding the scam, being advised by [AN and her husband] that this was a scam, with advice on how to rectify the situation, they were astonished and concerned that [RN] could be in such a situation. I understand [RN] has borrowed substantial sums from her several male suitors, for which she cooks and cleans for in exchange for money, with the suggestion that this could happen in the children's developmental years.
…
The main risks are financial, particularly ongoing risk of scam, reality based potential tax related issues, the threat of her suitors recalling their 'loans' and ongoing vulnerability.
She denied suicidal ideation, not intent or plan and this has always been maintained as emotional expression when faced with the loss of her freedom and independence …
At the hearing, the Investigator described the ongoing panic and anxiety that RN feels when she is put under pressure, particularly in relation to making decisions, which is likely related to the personality disorder.
Impairment in mental ability – low IQ
I am satisfied that RN has an impairment in her mental ability. The neurocognitive assessment RN underwent at Hospital B included a Weschler Intelligence Scale, which revealed a low average intellectual profile. I am satisfied that RN's low average IQ contributes to her poor judgment and limited financial literacy. It is likely that previously, her deceased husband, and now to a lesser degree her male partners, have provided scaffolding and support in this regard.[10]
[10] Discharge summary from Hospital B dated 24 February prepared by Dr F, page 3.
RN scored 19 out of 30 on a cognitive screening tool, a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), although the environment was noisy and RN has hearing problems. As English is not RN's first language, RN then completed a Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and scored 29 out of 30.[11]
[11] A RUDAS is a cognitive screening tool specifically developed for culturally and linguistically diverse populations to help identify a cognitive impairment.
A high score on a cognitive screening tool may imply that RN does not have a mental disability is not present. However, when considering a person's mental abilities and cognitive functioning, there is a hierarchy of sophistication of cognitive tasks ranging from basic functions like coordinating physical movements like buttoning a shirt, through to instrumental functions like mathematical calculations, and then to higher order executive functions like planning and abstract thinking, which involves complexity and subtlety. Being able to make a deliberated, informed decision after weighing up the pros and cons of different options, which is the type of decision-making the Tribunal is concerned with, falls into this highest category of executive functions.
Screening tools, such as a MoCA or RUDAS, are a brief measure of cognition which involves an assessment of orientation, verbal skills, memory, attention, and executive functions. Screening tools are useful for assessing the instrumental level of functioning but may not capture a person's true cognitive abilities and are unable to measure a person's judgment. By way of illustration, RN achieved an almost perfect score on the RUDAS and earnestly told me that the scammer put a satellite on her home to watch her. In reality, as explained by AN, the scammer had merely sent RN a screen shot of a Google Maps image of her home.
Susceptibility to exploitation
I am satisfied that a further aspect of RN's mental disability, or a symptom of it, is her abnormal susceptibility to being exploited or coerced, and her inability to identify when it is occurring. However, the fact that a person is a victim of a scam does not of itself mean that a person has a mental disability. RN has a pattern, over the course of her life, of being persuaded or pressured into making decisions that are not in her best interests. Dr A reported that RN's vulnerability to exploitation is much more than what one would expect in elderly people, noting that RN is only in her 60s.[12]
[12] Medical report by Dr A dated 25 March 2025, page 4.
RN's trust manager from the Public Trustee made the following comments in a report filed with the Tribunal:[13]
It is reported that [RN] has since 2017 lost approximately $2 million in bank savings and superannuation to a type of scam commonly called a 'pig butchering scheme' whereby cybercriminals contact potential victims on dating apps and use social engineering tactics to trick them into revealing sensitive information or transferring money.
The likelihood of recovering monies lost to cybercrime is low. From context it is apparent that the 'scammer' who has identified themselves to the client as [SA] is most likely not an individual but an organised transnational scam syndicate operating out of Southeast Asia and taking advantage of weak regulatory oversight, limited extradition agreements, and low cross-border legal cooperation.
The most that can be done is to report the cybercrime to the relevant Australian authorities and to note that victims of cybercrime are especially vulnerable to repeat targeting – scammers offering to assist with recovery of monies lost to cybercrime.
[13] Report prepared by the Public Trustee dated 25 March 2025, page 3.
Also known as romance baiting, pig butchering scams are named after the practice of farmers fattening pigs before slaughter in order to get the most meat and money. This type of scam is a long-term duration scam which usually includes romance and investment frauds. Victims are 'love-bombed', where they are lavished with excessive attention to make them feel obligated to their love interest, who will then ask them for money.
In 2024, the (real) AFP released details from a seized pig butchering 'how-to' manual to further inform the community about the tactics conmen and women were using to target multicultural communities and the wider public.[14] The AFP warned that while financial gain was the motivation for most scammers, some criminals had convinced some Australians to open bank accounts to enable money laundering, which is what appears to have occurred with RN.
[14] Media release by Australian Federal Police dated 21 January 2024 at accessed on 2 May 2025.
In addition to the scam that has been running for seven years and concerns about exploitation by her suitors, the most recent issue to arise is with RN's neighbour V and the threats of legal action in respect of the tree. AN's view is that the situation with V is further evidence of RN's ongoing and persistent vulnerability. AN gave evidence that she has had concerns for many years that RN was being exploited by various people that she has had contact with.
Comment about adjustment disorder
RN was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder by Dr TS, and Dr F's diagnosis referred to a 'situational crisis'. Adjustment disorder is an emotional or behavioural response to an identified stressor, with such distress being out of proportion to the severity or intensity of the stressor. The response causes significant disruptions in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, and once the stressor or its consequences have concluded, the symptoms do not persist for more than six months.[15]
[15] DSM5, page 286 - 287.
As an adjustment disorder is a temporary emotional response, I have not relied on this diagnosis as a basis for RN's mental disability, but I accept that she is likely also experiencing the symptoms of this disorder, which brought her to the attention of health professionals.
Conclusion in relation to existence of a mental disability
I am satisfied, and I find, that RN's condition falls within the meaning of 'mental disability' as described in FY, based on the most comprehensive and recent assessment of RN that was performed by Dr F. I am satisfied that the existence of the mental disability was clearly established by the evidence and is referable to the combination of the personality disorder, her low average IQ and her abnormal, and long-standing, susceptibility to being exploited.
I find that RN's mental disability has manifested as a limitation in her cognitive ability and judgment, with an ongoing lack of awareness of when she is being exploited. She has believed for seven years that gold and diamonds worth $3 million are held at the airport in her name. She accepted as true the threats from the AFP that she may be deported from Australia and she did not seek any external advice or assistance, particularly from AN, who is a highly educated professional. When contacted by the real AFP in relation to the concern that she was involved with money laundering, RN was unable to distinguish this contact with the contact from the scam AFP, and therefore did not raise the previous threats about deportation.
I will next explain why I am satisfied that RN is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of her estate.
Does the mental disability cause RN to be unable to make reasonable judgments about her estate?
For the Tribunal to decide whether RN is 'unable' to make reasonable judgments about her estate, I must consider RN's estate and circumstances, and then compare that against the extent to which RN is able to engage in the cognitive process required to make a 'reasonable judgment'.
What is RN's estate?
A person's 'estate' includes their real and personal property, all assets and liabilities, and all their financial affairs. In terms of assets, RN owns the home she shared with her husband. She has some savings and superannuation, although AN gave evidence that RN has given most of her superannuation to the scammer. In terms of liabilities, she has a personal loan and a small mortgage, the funds from both having been given to the scammer. She receives income from her employment and she rents rooms to boarders for extra income which she has used to pay her debts.
Can RN make reasonable judgments about her estate?
The ability of a person to make reasonable judgments about their estate is a subjective test, because the person's ability must be assessed in relation to their actual estate. The Tribunal must consider whether the person has the cognitive capacity to, among other things:[16]
… identify and to assess the financial implications of particular items of expenditure or of financial decisions … to organise their affairs so as to be able to meet debts as they fall due; and to identify and implement problem solving strategies for resolving any unexpected financial issues.
[16] FY at [53].
The Public Trustee was appointed as RN's emergency administrator.[17] The Public Trustee cancelled RN's cards attached to her bank accounts due to a number of international transactions observed on the bank statements indicating a likelihood that the cards had been compromised. The Public Trustee also observed transactions on the bank statements which were initiated by RN for no apparent benefit to her. The Public Trustee concluded that the bank transactions taken together with RN's general financial position (being considerably modest for her age and level of employment) corroborates the concern that she had been the victim of scams.
[17] GA Act, s 65.
Dr A reports that RN can make simple financial decisions and can operate her bank account to pay her bills. However, she will require safeguarding and supervision of her finances to ensure she does not naively respond to threats and to the demands of scammers. Dr A noted that the fact that English is not her first language and the effects of the stroke in 2017, in addition to her IQ and personality structure, impacts on her decision-making capacity.[18]
[18] Medical report by Dr A dated 25 March 2025, page 4.
The evidence demonstrates that RN has given away her assets and taken out loans to appease the scammer. Her actions have caused her immense emotional distress and jeopardised her financial security. I am therefore satisfied, and I find, that the mental disability causes RN to be unable to make reasonable judgments about her estate.
Conclusion – capacity to make financial decisions
Having regard to the documentary and oral evidence provided to the Tribunal, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, and I find, that the presumption of capacity has been set aside and RN's mental disability causes her to be unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of her estate. RN is therefore a person for whom I can appoint an administrator.
I next turn to explore whether RN is able to make decisions about her personal matters.
When can a guardian be appointed? The test for incapacity
To appoint a guardian for RN, I must be satisfied that she is over 18 years of age and that one or more of the following criteria apply:
(a)she is incapable of looking after her own health and safety;[19]
(b)she is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person;[20] or
(c)she is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety or for the protection of others.[21]
Is RN incapable of looking after her own health and safety?
[19] GA Act, s 43(1)(b)(i).
[20] GA Act, s 43(1)(b)(ii).
[21] GA Act, s 43(1)(b)(iii).
Social worker Ms W reports that RN:[22]
… developed transient suicidal ideation in the context feelings of guilt and shame, feeling hopeless and stressed with fear of continued harassment from the alleged scammers.
[22] Service Provider Report prepared by Ms W dated 25 February 2025, page 4.
RN told Dr F that she had considered different options of ending her life such as an overdose with prescription medication, cutting herself or carbon monoxide poisoning. Dr TS noted that when RN felt suicidal, she was unable to advocate for her needs and required AN to intervene in order for her to receive appropriate support and treatment.
I acknowledge that Dr F's comments cited at [36] that RN's suicidal ideation was an 'emotional expression when faced with the loss of her freedom and independence' but I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities, and I find, that RN is currently incapable of looking after her own health and safety as her vulnerability to scams may cause her to harm herself and she is unable to independently seek appropriate support.
Is RN unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person?
Dr TS reports that:[23]
Currently [RN] resides in the former family home which is significantly larger than she requires. I understand she is facing pressure from a neighbour to allow them to fell a tree in her garden, which she does not want, but she is limited in her ability to resist this pressure. So too, she is housing a number of 'borders', reportedly because she feels she needs the extra income to help pay her debts, but the potential negative consequences of having several strangers living in her house appears not to have been factored into her decision. As well as this, her geographical separation from her daughter (a key support) is something [RN] has dismissed when raised by clinicians, and it appears that she either disagrees, or does not recognise, that remaining in her current home may have its drawbacks.
[23] Medical report by Dr TS dated 31 March 2025, page 4.
In addition to the risk of further exploitation with several people living in her home, I note that the scammer knows her address as the tow truck driver was sent to her property to take her car. One of the boarders gave her new telephone number to the tow truck driver, so it is possible that decisions RN has made about the current management of her home has caused risks to her safety.
I am satisfied, and I find, that RN is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person.
Is RN in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety?
Social worker Ms W describes RN as being at:[24]
… an elevated risk for suicide and/or self harm … due to her vulnerable personality structure, longing for connection and social isolation … Although she says she has learned from the situation and says she will not do it again, her daughter says she will continue to be at risk of financial abuse and exploitation in other ways due to her poor judgment and lack of reasoning ability.
[24] Service Provider Report prepared by Ms W dated 25 February 2025, page 3.
AN has had justifiable concerns about RN's vulnerability for many years. I am satisfied, and I find, that RN is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety
Conclusion on capacity to make personal decisions
I am satisfied, and I find, that the presumption of capacity has been set aside in relation to personal decisions and RN is a person for whom I can appoint a guardian.
I next turn to explain why I am satisfied that RN is in need of a guardian and an administrator.
Issue - is there a need to appoint a guardian or an administrator or is a less restrictive option available?
Having regard to that evidence, there is no doubt that RN requires assistance to deal with her estate and to make decisions about her personal matters. The question I need to answer at this stage is not whether she needs assistance, but whether she needs an administrator or a guardian to be appointed for that purpose.
I must bear in mind the need to adopt a less restrictive option if possible. I must also take into account RN's wish for AN to be her substitute decision-maker.
Is informal decision-making appropriate?
Depending on the types of decisions a person needs made for them, informal arrangements can sometimes suffice. For example, medical treatment decisions can be made on an informal basis by family members or close friends pursuant to s 110ZD of the GA Act which sets out the hierarchy of decision-makers that can make medical treatment decisions on behalf of others.[25] Health professionals can seek consent from the 'person responsible' if they do not consider the patient to have the capacity to make that decision.
[25] Section 3 of the GA Act sets out the hierarchy in further detail.
As AN is RN's child, she can make medical treatment decisions for her mother. However, I hold concerns that due to RN's presentation, which is repeatedly described in the medical and other documents before the Tribunal, that she comes across as credible and competent. This means that it may not be immediately apparent to health professionals treating her that she lacks capacity.
Dr TS reports that:[26]
[O]n a superficial level, [RN] appears to have capacity to make treatment decisions, however, there have been several instances which she has declined to be followed up by our clinicians (obstinately due to work commitments and having limited annual leave) which may be to her detriment. I am not convinced that [RN] recognises the benefit to accepting ongoing medical care, and her devotion to her work (or unawareness of her right to attend medical appointments even if she is low on leave) appears in keeping with her broad lack of awareness of her rights and her vulnerability to being pushed to do things that are not in her best interest.
[26] Medical report by Dr TS dated 31 March 2025, page 4.
Ms W states that RN is able to understand and follow the advice of her treatment medical professionals. However AN has advised Ms W that RN fluctuates in her willingness to do so. [27]
Conclusion – is informal decision-making appropriate?
[27] Service Provider Report prepared by Ms W dated 25 February 2025, page 4.
I find that informal arrangements are not appropriate in this case as the only relevant decisions that could be made informally, about medical treatment and procedures, require someone to have the legal authority to make decisions. As RN appears to be competent, it is necessary that a formal order is made for her protection to ensure that she receives the treatment she requires.
Financial decisions - is the EPA a less restrictive option? If not, should it be revoked?
An enduring power of attorney is usually considered less restrictive than an administration order if it was prepared at a time when the donor had capacity and could choose who they want to manage their finances.
RN signed the EPA on 31 January 2025 to appoint AN as her attorney. RN's wishes are clear that she wants AN to manage her finances if she is not able to.
The evidence is not clear about whether RN had the capacity to sign the EPA. Dr A gave evidence that RN does not have the capacity to sign an enduring power of attorney[28] and Dr TS stated that he is 'unsure' as to whether RN has the capacity to sign an enduring power of attorney or an enduring power of guardianship.[29]
[28] Medical report of Dr A dated 25 March 2025, page 5.
[29] Medical report by Dr TS dated 31 March 2025.
The EPA is drafted to 'continue in force notwithstanding [RN's] subsequent legal incapacity'. This means that AN's authority to act started when the EPA was signed and will operate in parallel to RN's authority.[30]While RN gave evidence that she wants AN to have control of her finances as she fears that she is not able to withstand the requests of the scammer, it is likely that she did not understand that while the EPA is in place, and without the protection of the Public Trustee currently acting as her administrator, RN would also be able to access her own bank accounts and continue to make transfers to the scammer.
[30] SMM [2020] WASAT 85.
Of most concern is the risk identified by the Public Trustee, where victims of cybercrime are especially vulnerable to repeat targeting, as scammers will offer to assist the victim with recovery of monies lost to cybercrime.
Conclusion – does RN need an administrator?
I am satisfied on the balance of the evidence before me that, even if RN had the capacity to sign the EPA in January, the EPA does not provide her with proper protection as RN still retains the ability to transact on her accounts due to the EPA being a parallel authority. The EPA will not prevent RN from sending funds to the scammer.
I will therefore revoke the EPA, which creates the need to appoint an administrator to manage RN's estate. I am satisfied that there is no less restrictive way for financial decisions to be made in RN's best interests. The Tribunal needs to appoint an administrator for RN's proper protection.
Personal decisions - is the EPG a less restrictive option? And if not, should the EPG be revoked or varied under s 110N
RN signed the EPG on 31 January 2025 appointing AN as her enduring guardian. The EPG will only have effect 'at any time [RN] is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to [her] person'.[31]
[31] GA Act, s 110F.
RN's wishes are clear that she wants AN to make her personal decisions and while signing the EPG is in accordance with her wishes, I am not satisfied that RN had the capacity to sign the EPG. Dr A has given evidence to that effect.[32]
Conclusion – does RN need a guardian?
[32] Dr A Report, page 5.
To ascertain whether there is a need for a guardian, it is necessary to examine whether there are any ongoing personal decisions that RN is unable to make herself and would require a guardian to make for her. As mentioned, I am satisfied that there is a need for a medical treatment guardian. The other functions required are discussed in more detail later in these reasons.
I am satisfied on the evidence before me, and I find, that there are no less restrictive means available for certain personal matters to be dealt with in RN's best interests. The Tribunal needs to appoint a guardian.
I will now turn to the third issue which is who should be the guardian and administrator, what their functions or powers should be, and how long the orders should run. I will start with guardianship and then turn to administration.
Issue – who should be appointed, what functions are needed and how long should the orders run?
Who should be RN's guardian?
When considering the appointment of a guardian, the Tribunal must hold the opinion that the proposed guardian will act in the best interests of RN, is not in a position where their interests conflict or may conflict with her interests and is suitable to act as the guardian.[33]
[33] GA Act, s 44(1). Section 51(2) sets out the way a guardian must act when acting in the best interests of the represented person.
AN is the only nominee for guardian. I find that AN is over the age of 18 years and has consented to act as the guardian.[34] I find that AN will act in best interests of RN as the evidence demonstrates that she has been doing so for quite some time. AN is not in a position of conflict and I am satisfied that she will be able to perform the functions to be vested in the guardian, as she has already been assisting her mother in this way. I find that appointing AN as RN's guardian is in accordance with RN's wishes. I will appoint AN as RN's guardian.
What functions should the guardian have?
Medical treatment
[34] GA Act, s 44(1).
RN requires her guardian to make decisions about medical treatment. While AN has standing under s 110ZD of the GA Act to make medical treatment decisions as RN's daughter, my view is that it is necessary to formally appoint a guardian for this purpose. RN has ongoing appointments with Dr TS and further investigations may be required when the results of the PET scan are received.
The reports before the Tribunal consistently refer to the fact that RN presents as cognitively intact, so it is in RN's best interests that it is clear to all health professionals that treat her:
(a)that the Tribunal has found that RN lacks capacity in this domain;
(b)AN has the authority to make medical treatment decisions for her; and
(c)they are authorised to give information to and receive information from AN.
Accommodation
RN requires a guardian to make decisions about her accommodation. Dr TS noted that RN does not understand the safety risks involved with having numerous boarders living in her home, or that it would be beneficial to live closer to AN.
AN raised a concern at the hearing that RN may not agree to move out of her home. The example given was that the roof of her home needs significant remedial work, which RN cannot afford to pay. RN has instead arranged small 'patch fix' repairs to the roof. AN's view is that as RN does not understand that if she does not have the funds to fix the roof properly, the home should be sold as is. AN's concern is that due to RN's limited financial literacy, RN will not agree to move from your home, and will continue to pay for small repairs to the roof, rather than agree to sell the home for financial reasons, in addition to the safety concerns noted above.
Contact
RN requires a guardian to make decisions about who she will have contact with and the extent of that contact. Apart from concerns around RN's male suitors and the scammer, AN has asked the neighbour V multiple times for him to stop contacting RN, and to only speak directly to AN about the tree. However, V continues to turn up to RN's home unannounced, as well as sending her text messages and emails.
Legal function – next friend
RN requires her guardian to have the ability to start, conduct and settle legal proceedings on her behalf that do not relate to her estate. For example, if AN considered it necessary to seek a restraining order to protect RN from contact with V, she would need this function.
Legal function – guardian ad litem
RN requires her guardian to have the ability to defend and respond to legal proceedings commenced by someone else that do not relate to her estate. For example, if V started legal proceedings against RN in relation to the tree, AN would need this function to respond to those proceedings.
Legal function – legal advocacy
The real AFP have contacted RN in relation to the concerns she has been involved in money laundering. AN may need to obtain legal advice and representation for RN if any charges are laid in respect to this. AN may need the authority to speak to the police and advocate on RN's behalf if this matter progressed.
Conclusion in relation to functions
I am therefore satisfied that there is a need for a guardian appointed by the Tribunal to make decisions for RN about her medical treatment, accommodation, contact and the three legal functions.
I will now turn to discuss who should be RN's administrator.
Who should be RN's administrator?
When considering the appointment of an administrator, the Tribunal must hold the opinion that the administrator will act in RN's best interests and is suitable to act as the administrator of her estate.[35] When assessing suitability, the Tribunal must also have regard to:[36]
(a)the compatibility of the proposed appointee with RN and the guardian (if appointed);
(b)RN's wishes; and
(c)whether the proposed appointee will be able to perform the functions to be vested in the administrator.
[35] GA Act, s 68(1)(c) and s 68(1)(d).
[36] GA Act, s 68(3)(d).
AN has proposed herself for appointment. I find that AN is over the age of 18 years and has consented to act as the administrator.[37] I am satisfied, and I find, that AN will act in RN's best interests. The evidence shows that she has already been supervising RN's finances, with RN's consent, so she is familiar with RN's estate and has been able to provide oversight in a way that has not impacted negatively on their relationship.
[37] GA Act, s 68(1).
AN 's appointment is consistent with RN 's wishes.[38] AN is also RN's guardian, she will be able to consistently implement the decisions that she makes in both roles.[39] I am satisfied that AN will be able to perform the functions to be vested in the administrator and comply with the requirement to report annually to the Public Trustee. I will appoint AN as RN 's administrator.
What should the administrator's powers be?
[38] GA Act, s 68(3)(b).
[39] GA Act, s 68(3)(a).
A detailed discussion occurred at the hearing about whether RN required a limited or a plenary administrator. While RN is able to earn an income and pay her bills, there is a very real risk that she might be coerced to give her income to other people if they ask, which she has done historically. I am satisfied that the administration order should be a plenary order, which will allow the administrator to deal with all aspects of RN's estate in her best interests due to her extreme and long‑standing vulnerability.
I will include a gifting authority of $2,000 per year so the administrator can purchase gifts on RN's behalf for RN's children and grandchildren.
How long should the orders run before review?
When making orders, the Tribunal is required to fix a period for the review of the order. RN's low average IQ and personality disorder are static conditions, meaning that they will not get better or worse over time. The scam has been ongoing for seven years so I am satisfied that there is a continuing need for a guardian and an administrator to make decisions for RN. Therefore, these orders are to be reviewed within the maximum term possible, which is within five years of the date of the orders.
Orders
GAA 576 of 2025
The Tribunal orders:
1.The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [RN] is:
(a)unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of her estate;
(b)in need of an administrator of her estate;
(c)incapable of looking after her own health and safety;
(d)unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person;
(e)in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety; and
(f)in need of a guardian.
Administration
2.The order made on 6 February 2025 pursuant to s 65 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) is revoked.
3.[AN] of [address] is appointed plenary administrator of the represented person's estate with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
4.The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $2,000 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.
5.The enduring power of attorney dated 31 January 2025 by which the represented person appointed [AN] to be their attorney, is revoked.
6.The administration order is to be reviewed by 29 April 2030.
Guardianship
7.[AN] of [address] 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 what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact;
(e)as the next friend of the represented person, commence, conduct or settle any legal proceedings on behalf of the represented person, except proceedings relating to the estate of the represented person;
(f)as the guardian ad litem of the represented person, defend or settle any legal proceedings taken against the represented person, except proceedings relating to the estate of the represented person; and
(g)to seek legal advice and representation on behalf of the represented person, and to advocate in relation to any police investigation, criminal charges or related proceedings.
8.The guardianship order is to be reviewed by 29 April 2030.
GAA 649 of 2025
The Tribunal notes:
1.[RN] signed an enduring power of guardianship on 31 January 2025 appointing [AN] as her enduring guardian.
The Tribunal orders:
2.The enduring power of guardianship is revoked.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
20 MAY 2025
0