RN - [2025] WASAT 46 | CaseChat AU

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…

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 RN

Details

AGLC: RN [2025] WASAT 46
Case: [2025] WASAT 46
Decision Date: 20 MAY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an application for the revocation of an enduring power of attorney and enduring power of guardianship, as well as the appointment of a private administrator and a private guardian. The applicant was a close family member of the respondent who had been diagnosed with a delusional disorder, histrionic personality disorder, and a low average IQ. The respondent had fallen victim to a scam and was susceptible to exploitation. The court was asked to consider whether the respondent's capacity to manage their own affairs and make decisions about their care and welfare had deteriorated to the point where the enduring powers of attorney and guardianship were no longer valid.

The court had to determine whether the respondent's capacity to manage their own affairs had deteriorated to the point where the enduring powers of attorney and guardianship were no longer valid. The court also had to consider whether the respondent was susceptible to exploitation and whether there was a risk that they would be involved in a money laundering scheme. The court had to balance the respondent's right to autonomy and self-determination with the need to protect them from harm and exploitation.

The court found that the respondent's capacity to manage their own affairs had deteriorated to the point where the enduring powers of attorney and guardianship were no longer valid. The court noted that the respondent had fallen victim to a scam and was susceptible to exploitation. The court also found that there was a risk that the respondent would be involved in a money laundering scheme. The court concluded that the revocation of the enduring powers of attorney and guardianship, and the appointment of a private administrator and a private guardian, was in the best interests of the respondent.

The court revoked the enduring power of attorney and enduring power of guardianship, and appointed a private administrator and a private guardian. The court also made orders to protect the respondent's assets and prevent them from being involved in a money laundering scheme. The court emphasised the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and harm, and the need for careful consideration of the balance between autonomy and protection.

Orders