RZ
[2025] WASAT 119
•27 OCTOBER 2025
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION: RZ [2025] WASAT 119
MEMBER: MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
HEARD: 9 AND 15 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED : 27 OCTOBER 2025
PUBLISHED : 27 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S: GAA 5336 of 2025
RZ
Represented Person
EZ
Applicant
NB and JB
Prospective Purchasers
PUBLIC TRUSTEE
Third Party
Catchwords:
Administration - Represented person signed contract to sell real property - Appointment of Public Trustee as emergency administrator - Role of emergency administrator - Parties to proceedings in the Tribunal - Open justice - Application for costs from prospective purchasers of property - Application for costs against the Public Trustee - Application for costs dismissed - Application from prospective purchasers to access documents - Access to documents refused
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4(2), s 17, s 40, s 41, s 64, s 65, s 70, s 71(5), s 82, Sch 1, cl 11, cl 13(2)(a), s 112(4)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 5, s 32(1), s 32(2)(a), s 32(4), s 32(5), s 35(1), s 36, s 36(1)(b), s 36(1)(c), s 36(2), s 37(3), s 38, s 61(2), s 61, s 61(4)(d), s 61(4)(h), s 87
Result:
Application for costs dismissed
Application to access documents refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Represented Person | : | N/A |
| Applicant | : | In Person |
| Prospective Purchasers | : | Mr P Jebb |
| Third Party | : | Ms S Clutterbuck |
Solicitors:
| Represented Person | : | N/A |
| Applicant | : | N/A |
| Prospective Purchasers | : | Jebb Legal |
| Third Party | : | Public Trustee |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
RZ is aged in his late 70s. He is retired but previously worked as a real estate agent. RZ signed a contract to sell his rural Property (Contract) but could not remember important details about the transaction, such as who he listed the Property with.
Due to those concerns, RZ's son EZ applied to the Tribunal for the appointment of a guardian and administrator pursuant to s 40 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act). The Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee as RZ's emergency administrator to protect and secure the Property until the hearing occurred on 9 October 2025 (Hearing).
The prospective purchasers of the Property, NB and JB (Purchasers) considered that EZ's application was without merit. They advised EZ that they would attend the Hearing to make submissions about the Contract and would seek that EZ pay their legal costs.
The Tribunal ordered that the Hearing be held in private and directed that only RZ, his wife AZ, EZ and the Public Trustee would attend. The day before the Hearing, the Purchasers filed submissions with the Tribunal claiming that they were being denied procedural fairness by being excluded from the Hearing and again sought that their legal costs be paid.
At the Hearing, the Public Trustee was appointed as RZ's plenary administrator. A few days later, the Tribunal held a directions hearing with the Purchasers to clarify aspects of their application for costs and their subsequent request to access documents held by the Tribunal.
I have decided to dismiss the Purchasers' application for costs and refuse to allow access to documents held by the Tribunal. These are the reasons for my decision.
Legislation and principles
The primary concern of the Tribunal when making decisions under the GA Act is the best interests of the person for whom the application was made, RZ.
The Tribunal will take all facts and circumstances into account when determining RZ's best interests. The Tribunal may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit, and is not bound by rules of evidence, which ensures, as far as possible, that all relevant information can be considered by the Tribunal to make the correct decision in RZ's best interests.[1]
[1] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), s 32(2)(a) and s 32(4).
An application for guardianship and administration is made pursuant to s 40 of the GA Act. When considering such an application, the Tribunal must first determine whether the person concerned lacks the capacity to make decisions about their personal and financial matters. If so, the Tribunal will next consider whether it needs to make an order, or whether there is another way for decisions to be made for the person that is less restrictive on their freedom of decision and action.
If orders are needed, the Tribunal will next decide who the guardian or administrator will be, the functions or powers they require and when the order will be reviewed.
Issues
The s 40 application (Proceeding) was determined at the Hearing, where I appointed the Public Trustee as RZ's plenary administrator. The further issues for the Tribunal to resolve are:
(a)whether the Purchasers are parties to the Proceeding;
(b)whether the Purchasers should receive a costs order in their favour; and
(c)whether the Purchasers should be given access to documents held by the Tribunal for the purposes of the Proceeding?
Findings of fact
The facts set out in [13] to [27] below are not controversial and I make findings in accordance with those facts.
RZ signed an enduring power of attorney on 19 April 2017 to appoint AZ and EZ as his joint and several attorneys (EPA).
RZ signed a listing authority to list the Property for sale with the real estate agent (Agent) on 17 August 2025.
September 2025
On 11 September, RZ signed the Contract to sell the Property to the Purchasers for $900,000.
On 22 September, EZ filed the application to the Tribunal to seek the appointment of an administrator and guardian for RZ. On 23 September, initial case management orders were prepared by the Tribunal, as was an order to the Agent to produce to the Tribunal a copy of all documents relating to the sale of the Property (Agent Order).[2]
[2] SAT Act, s 35(1).
Also on 23 September, a medical certificate was filed with the Tribunal that recorded that RZ scored 21 out of 30 on a Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test. A score below 26 may indicate some degree of cognitive impairment.
On 24 September, the Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee as RZ's emergency administrator.[3] The order stated that the Public Trustee was appointed as the limited administrator to protect and secure the Property including lodging a caveat on the title to it (Section 65 Order).
[3] GA Act, s 65.
On 25 September, the Purchasers instructed their solicitor to write to EZ to require that EZ, among other things, amend the orders sought in the application to withdraw all orders seeking to set aside, vary or restrain completion of the Contract. The letter also stated:[4]
26.Please be advised that if you do not consent to the variation of orders as requested above, we will enter an appearance and attend the hearing on 9 October 2025 to oppose your application. We will seek an order that you pay our clients' costs of the proceeding pursuant to section 87 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), on the basis that your application is without merit and has caused unnecessary expense and delay to our clients who are acting in good faith as purchasers for adequate consideration.
27.Please confirm by return email that you will file an amended application consistent with [the request] above and provide a copy of the lodged amendment. If we do not receive confirmation by the stated deadline, our clients will act to protect their contractual rights and seek their costs be paid.
28.I may be contacted on [telephone number and email address] should you wish to query anything set out above.
[4] Letter dated 25 September 2025 from Jebb Legal to EZ.
EZ did not respond to the letter or contact the solicitor. EZ filed a copy of the letter with the Tribunal.
Settlement of the Property was scheduled for 16 October 2025. The same settlement agent (Settlement Agent) was engaged to act for both RZ and the Purchasers.
The Public Trustee informed the Settlement Agent that the Settlement Agent was not to take any further steps in relation to the settlement.
October 2025
On 1 October, I ordered that the Hearing would be held in private so that only RZ, AZ, EZ and the Public Trustee were to be present (Privacy Order).[5]
[5] SAT Act, s 61(2), s 61(4)(d) and s 61(4)(h).
The day before the Hearing, the Purchasers filed 11 pages of submissions in which they sought their costs and assurances that no adverse findings would be made against their interests at the Hearing.[6]
[6] Submissions dated 8 October 2025 filed by Jebb Legal.
At the Hearing of 9 October, I made an order, among others, to appoint the Public Trustee as RZ's plenary administrator.
The next day, the Tribunal contacted the Purchasers' solicitor to obtain his and his clients' availability to attend a directions hearing to clarify the Purchasers' costs application. The Purchasers instructed their solicitor to write to the Tribunal to seek urgent access to documents held by the Tribunal, and that all parties file further submissions.
The directions hearing occurred on 15 October 2025. At this hearing, the Purchasers' solicitor confirmed that:
(a)the Purchasers were seeking that the Public Trustee pay their costs; and
(b)the Purchasers had received copies of the Section 65 Order and the Agent Order. These two orders formed the basis of the Purchasers' understanding of the Proceeding. They concluded that because the Agent was asked to provide copies of documents relating to the sale of the Property, and the Public Trustee was appointed to protect the Property, the purpose of the Proceeding was to stop the sale of the Property.
The Purchasers' case
The Purchasers contend that EZ made the application to the Tribunal for the sole purpose of preventing the sale of the Property. They say it is artificial to view the s 40 application as a 'stand-alone' application that was unrelated to the Contract. The Purchasers say they are parties to the Proceeding as their interests have been affected.
The Purchasers say they have been treated unfairly and had no choice but to intervene and file submissions to protect their interests. They claim they are entitled to an order for their substantial legal costs and compensation for the distress and uncertainty caused by having to defend their position.
The Purchasers say there are three reasons they have incurred costs.
First, they were denied procedural fairness because the Privacy Order prevented them from attending the Hearing. The Purchasers say their submissions about the formation of the Contract were relevant to the Tribunal's determination of whether RZ has capacity. In addition, they wanted to make submissions about whether the Public Trustee should be appointed as RZ's administrator or whether an attorney should manage RZ's estate using the EPA.
Second, the Purchasers say that the conduct of the Public Trustee caused them to incur costs. The Purchasers allege that the Public Trustee has not engaged openly with the Purchasers' solicitor.
The Purchasers contend that the Public Trustee acted beyond the legal authority provided by the Section 65 Order by telling the Settlement Agent to halt work on the settlement. The Purchasers assert that the Public Trustee was 'stepping into the shoes' of RZ, which goes beyond protecting his estate. The Purchasers say that lodging a caveat, which was anticipated by the order, was within power but directing the Settlement Agent not to effect settlement was ultra vires and caused an immediate detriment to the Purchasers.
Further, the Purchasers contend that because the Public Trustee has not made an application to the Tribunal pursuant to s 82 of the GA Act, there was no basis for the Public Trustee to prevent settlement occurring on 16 October. Section 82 of the GA Act provides for the Tribunal to set aside a transaction if the following circumstances:
82.Transactions may be set aside
(1)Subject to subsection (2), where a person within 2 months before being declared under section 64(1) to be a person in need of an administrator of his estate has entered into a disposition of any property (including a gift) or taken on lease, mortgaged, charged, or purchased any property, or agreed to do so, the State Administrative Tribunal may, on the application of the administrator of that person's estate and on notice to such persons as the Tribunal may direct, set aside the transaction and make such consequential orders as it thinks fit for the purpose of adjusting the position or rights of the parties and other persons.
(2)The State Administrative Tribunal shall not set aside any transaction under this section where —
(a)the application is not brought within the period of 2 years commencing on the day of the completion of the transaction or, in the case of a lease taken, is not brought before the expiration of the lease; or
(b)the Tribunal is satisfied, in the case of a transaction that is not a gift, that —
(i)the other party acted in good faith and without notice of any incapacity to which the represented person was then subject; and
(ii)the consideration for the disposition was adequate or, in the case of a purchase, not excessive or, in the case of a lease taken, the rent is not excessive.
(3)For the purposes of an application under this section, the represented person shall be deemed to have been a person who was in need of an administrator of his estate, at the time when he entered into the transaction or agreed to do so, until the contrary is shown.
Third, the Purchasers say that they were required to urgently engage senior legal representation to protect their substantial property rights in circumstances where they have been denied procedural fairness and advance notice of potential adverse consequences. The Purchasers expected that a determination would be made about the Contract at the Hearing and believed their rights would be affected without knowledge of the case against them or the opportunity to be heard.
I will next set out the basis upon which the Privacy Order was made.
The power to hold hearings in private and closing hearings to the public
While the common law principles of open justice apply to courts, the Tribunal is a creature of statute and has distinctly different jurisdiction to a court. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is conferred by other legislation, which is described at the 'enabling Act' in the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). Proceedings in the Tribunal are governed by both the SAT Act and the enabling Act, which in this case is the GA Act. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is divided into two categories - original jurisdiction and review jurisdiction. Applications made pursuant to the GA Act come within the Tribunal's original jurisdiction.
The SAT Act directs that the Tribunal is bound by the rules of natural justice, except to the extent that the SAT Act or the enabling Act expressly or by implication allow a departure from those rules.[7] If there is a conflict between the SAT Act and the enabling Act, the enabling Act prevails.[8]
[7] SAT Act, s 32(1).
[8] SAT Act, s 5.
The question of whether a proceeding should be conducted in private is therefore not determined by the general principles of open justice, but by a construction of the enabling Act.[9] Unlike other matters in the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal, such as disciplinary proceedings that relate to professional people, there is no public interest in the transparency of guardianship and administration matters, which necessitate the examination of the private history and medical records of the person concerned, thereby exposing their vulnerability.
[9] Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151 at [76] - [79].
The Tribunal also has different procedures to that of a court, and if the practice and procedure is not prescribed under the SAT Act or the enabling Act, the Tribunal can determine its own practice and procedure.[10]
[10] SAT Act, s 32(5).
Section 61 of the SAT Act provides the Tribunal with the power to direct that only specific persons be present at a hearing:
61.Hearings to be public; exceptions
(1)Unless another provision of this Act provides otherwise, hearings of the Tribunal are to be held in public.
(2)On the application of a party or on its own initiative the Tribunal may, in the circumstances described in subsection (4), order that a hearing or any part of it be held in private and that only specified persons may be present.
(3)The Tribunal's power to make an order under subsection (2) is exercisable by —
(a)a legally qualified member; or
(b)the presiding member if the Tribunal as constituted for a hearing does not consist of or include a legally qualified member.
(4)The Tribunal may make an order under subsection (2) if the Tribunal considers it is necessary to do so —
(a)to avoid endangering the national or international security of Western Australia or Australia; or
(b)to avoid damaging inter-governmental relations; or
(c)to avoid prejudicing the administration of justice; or
(d)to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of any person; or
(e)to avoid offending public decency or morality; or
(f)to avoid endangering property; or
(g)to avoid the publication of confidential information or information the publication of which would be contrary to the public interest; or
(h)for any other reason in the interests of justice.
The discretion in subsection (4) to make an order pursuant to subsection (2) can only be exercised if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is 'necessary' to make the order to avoid one of the consequences set out in subsection (4).
The GA Act contains its own provision to direct whether a hearing, or part of a hearing, will be closed to the public. Clause 11 of Schedule 1 of the GA Act provides that the Tribunal can direct that a specific person is not present at a hearing, with the discretion based on the best interests of the person concerned.
Clause 11 of Schedule 1 of the GA Act provides as follows:[11]
[11] Section 17 of the GA Act states that the provisions of Schedule 1 have effect with respect to proceedings of the State Administrative Tribunal commenced under the GA Act.
11.Hearings
[(1) deleted]
(2)Where, in a particular case, the State Administrative Tribunal determines that it would be in the best interests of the person to whom proceedings commenced under this Act relate for the hearing or part of the hearing to be closed to the public, the Tribunal may, subject to subclause (3), direct that a person shall not be present at the hearing unless —
(a)in the opinion of the Tribunal, he is directly interested in the proceedings; or
(b)he has been authorised by the Tribunal to be present.
(3)Any person bona fide engaged in reporting or commenting upon the proceedings of the State Administrative Tribunal commenced under this Act for dissemination through a public news medium shall not be excluded from the place where the hearings are being held.
RZ is a vulnerable person. I was satisfied that it was likely that the discussion at the Hearing about the difficulties he is experiencing, the medical evidence and the decisions he had made would be distressing for him. It was also necessary for the parties that attended the Hearing to feel comfortable to speak openly and honestly in RZ's best interests.
Based on the robust correspondence from Jebb Legal, I was satisfied that the Hearing would have been more upsetting for RZ if the Purchasers attended to made submissions about the formation of the Contract and who should be RZ's decision-maker. It was in RZ's best interests, in terms of his mental health and safety, that he be protected from contact with the Purchasers and that the hearing occur in private with only specified people to attend.
I do not accept that the Purchasers' understanding of the events surrounding the formation of the Contract would provide any relevant evidence about RZ's capacity. They do not know RZ and I was satisfied that they did not have any first-hand knowledge of his decision-making capacity that would have assisted the Tribunal. The most relevant evidence in respect of RZ's capacity was filed by his geriatrician in the days prior to the Hearing.
I also do not accept that the Purchasers' opinion about who the administrator should be, or whether an attorney should manage RZ's finances, would have been relevant to my determination.
Finally, the Purchasers told EZ that he was at risk of a costs order if he did not amend the orders sought in his application. The orders sought by EZ related to guardianship and administration, so the Purchasers' requirement that EZ amend the orders relating to the Contract was misconceived. I am satisfied that EZ was acting in RZ's best interests when making the application to the Tribunal and the Purchasers' attempts at interfering with the Tribunal process to protect their interests, with the threat of costs, meant it was inappropriate that they have any involvement in the Proceeding.
I held the Hearing in private to protect RZ's mental health and in the interests of justice, as it was imperative that the Hearing was emotionally safe for the family and did not put EZ at risk of further demands for costs from the Purchasers.
I will next discuss the Public Trustee's powers when appointed as the emergency administrator and the allegation that they acted beyond those powers.
The powers of an emergency administrator
The Tribunal can appoint an emergency administrator in the following circumstances:
65.Emergency provision
Where it appears to the State Administrative Tribunal that —
(a)a person may be a person in respect of whom a declaration should be made under subsection (1) of section 64; and
(b)it is necessary to make immediate provision for the protection of the person's estate,
then, pending the determination of the question whether the person is, in fact, a person in respect of whom a declaration should be made under that subsection, the Tribunal may exercise such of the powers conferred on it by this Act as may be necessary for enabling that provision to be made.
Subsection (1) of s 64 of the GA Act provides that:
…where the State Administrative Tribunal is satisfied that a person in respect of whom an application for an administration order is made under section 40 —
(a)is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate; and
(b)is in need of an administrator of his estate,
the Tribunal may by order declare the person to be in need of an administrator of his estate, and if it does so shall appoint —
(c)a person to be the administrator; or
(d)persons to be joint administrators,
as the case may require, of the estate of the person in respect of whom the application is made.
The decision about whether to appoint an emergency administrator can be made at any time and is often made at the case management stage when an application is filed, particularly if the person concerned has signed a contract to dispose of an asset.
The Section 65 Order was limited to protecting and securing the Property only. The pressing issue for the Tribunal was to protect and secure the Property pending the outcome of the Hearing.
An administrator appointed under s 65 must act in the person's best interests, which includes protecting the person from financial abuse, neglect and exploitation.[12] The GA Act allows the administrator to take a liberal interpretation of the person's best interests.[13]
[12] GA Act, s 70.
[13] GA Act, s 71(5) referring to s 4(2).
I do not accept the Purchasers' contention that the Public Trustee acted beyond the power of the Section 65 Order. It was entirely within the legislative framework of the GA Act, guided as always by the best interests of the person concerned, for the Public Trustee to notify the Settlement Agent, who at the time was acting for both RZ and the Purchasers, that they were to take no further steps in respect of settlement until advised to do so by the Public Trustee.
While this may delay settlement, the Public Trustee needed more time to obtain evidence to make a decision, in RZ's best interests, about whether settlement should occur or whether to make an application pursuant to s 82 of the GA Act to have the Contract set aside.
The Public Trustee was not required to lodge a caveat; a caveat was one of many options the Public Trustee could consider when acting in RZ's best interests to secure the Property. There are legal costs involved with preparing and lodging a caveat. If the Public Trustee decided that settlement should occur, further costs would be incurred to withdraw the caveat, with all costs being borne by RZ. It is not in RZ's best interests to incur costs unnecessarily.
Counsel for the Public Trustee confirmed that two letters were sent to the Purchasers' solicitor. The first letter was sent prior to the Hearing to advise that the Public Trustee was not the applicant and could not amend the orders sought in the application. The second letter was sent after the Public Trustee was appointed as the plenary administrator and advised that a decision could not be made immediately in relation to whether a s 82 application would be made, as more evidence was required. I am satisfied that, on the basis of these communications, the Public Trustee did engage openly with the Purchasers' solicitor.
I am further satisfied that the Public Trustee acted within the authority of the Section 65 Order and took reasonable steps to protect RZ's interests in a timely manner. I am satisfied that the Purchasers contention that the Public Trustee has acted beyond power is misconceived, failing as it does to understand the aims of the GA Act as a whole, and therefore has no merit.
I will next discuss whether the Purchasers are parties to the Proceeding, as only a party can claim costs from another party.
Are the Purchasers parties to the Proceeding?
The parties to an application under the GA Act are:[14]
… the applicant, the represented person or person in respect of whom an application is made, a person to whom notice of an application is required by this Act to be given, or to whom such notice is given, and any person who is heard by the State Administrative Tribunal under clause 13(2)(a) of Schedule 1.
[14] GA Act, s 3.
The persons the Tribunal is required to give notice of an application include the nearest relative of the person for whom the application was made, the Public Trustee, the Public Advocate, the proposed guardian, the proposed administrator and any other person that has a proper interest in the matter.[15]
[15] GA Act, s 41.
Clause 13(2)(a) of Sch 1 of the GA Act states that the Tribunal may 'hear any person who, in the opinion of the Tribunal, has a proper interest in proceedings commenced under' the GA Act.
The Purchasers would need to satisfy the Tribunal that they had a proper interest in the matter to be considered parties to the proceedings. The matter relates to an application for guardianship and administration, which involves evidence being examined by the Tribunal in relation to RZ's decision-making capacity, whether he needs orders, and if so, who should be appointed, what functions they require and when the orders should be reviewed.
I am satisfied, and I find, that the Purchasers do not have a proper interest in the Proceeding. I find that the Purchasers' interest is to finalise the purchase of the Property, which is not a 'proper interest' in the Proceeding.
The position under the SAT Act should also be considered. Section 36 of the SAT Act sets out who are parties to proceedings in the Tribunal:
(1)A person is a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal if the person is —
(a)the applicant; or
(b)a person joined under section 38 as a party to the proceeding; or
(c)a person intervening in the proceeding; or
(d)specified by this Act or the enabling Act to be a party to the proceeding.
(2)If the proceeding is in the Tribunal's original jurisdiction, anyone else in respect of whom a decision of the Tribunal is sought is also a party[.]
In respect of s 36(1)(b) of the SAT Act, the Tribunal may order that a party be joined to a proceeding if the Tribunal is satisfied that the person's interests are affected by the proceeding or for any other reason.[16] I do not consider that the Purchasers' interests were affected by the Proceeding, which concerned RZ's best interests and protection. The Purchasers therefore were not joined to the Proceeding by the Tribunal.
[16] SAT Act, s 38.
In respect of s 36(1)(c), the Purchasers advised EZ of their intention to attend the Hearing, but no application was made to the Tribunal for the Purchasers to formally intervene. Had such an application been made, I would not have granted leave for the Purchasers to intervene.[17] I issued the Privacy Order because my view was that the presence of the Purchasers at the Hearing was inappropriate.
[17] SAT Act, s 37(3).
Section 36(2) directs that when exercising the Tribunal's original jurisdiction, such as applications under the GA Act, anyone seeking a decision of the Tribunal is also a party. The Purchasers are seeking that the Tribunal make a decision in relation to their costs. However, s 36(2) needs to be read in light of s 5 of the SAT Act, which states that in the event of any inconsistency between the SAT Act and the enabling Act, the enabling Act will prevail.
I am therefore satisfied that the Purchasers are not parties to the Proceeding as they do not have a proper interest in the Proceeding as required by the GA Act.
Should the Purchasers receive costs?
Section 87 of the SAT Act sets out the starting point in relation to costs in Tribunal proceeding, which is that each party should bear their own costs.
87.Costs of parties and others
(1)Unless otherwise specified in this Act, the enabling Act, or an order of the Tribunal under this section, parties bear their own costs in a proceeding of the Tribunal.
(2)Unless otherwise specified in the enabling Act, the Tribunal may make an order for the payment by a party of all or any of the costs of another party or of a person required to produce a document or other material on the application of the party under section 35.
(3)The power of the Tribunal to make an order for the payment by a party of the costs of another party includes the power to make an order for the payment of an amount to compensate the other party for any expenses, loss, inconvenience, or embarrassment resulting from the proceeding or the matter because of which the proceeding was brought[.]
As I have determined that the Purchasers are not parties to the Proceeding, they are not entitled to seek costs against another party. The Purchasers were not asked to participate in the Proceeding. They chose to insert themselves into the Proceeding by instructing their solicitor to file submissions with the Tribunal and write to EZ, the Tribunal and the Public Trustee based on their wish to complete the Contract.
Therefore, I will not make an order pursuant to s 87 of the SAT Act and the Purchasers will bear the costs relating to the actions they have taken.
While the Contract was the catalyst for the application to the Tribunal, as it exposed RZ's vulnerability, the Tribunal was not going to consider whether the Contract should be set aside in the Proceeding. This is evident from:
(a)the Agent Order and the Section 65 Order, both of which were provided to the Purchasers' solicitor. It is apparent on the face of the orders that the relevant application was an 'Application to appoint a guardian and/or administrator';
(b)the terms of s 65 of the GA Act, which allow the Tribunal to appoint an interim administrator pending the determination of whether the person concerned is someone for whom an administrator could be appointed; and
(c)the terms of s 82 of the GA Act, which requires:
(i)an administrator to make the application; and
(ii)the Tribunal to give notice to anyone affected by the application including the other party to the transaction.
Should the Purchasers be given access to documents held by the Tribunal?
I accepted an oral application at the directions hearing from the Purchasers' solicitor pursuant to s 112(4) of the GA Act which states:
(4)The State Administrative Tribunal may on the application of any person —
(a)by order, authorise any person, whether conditionally or unconditionally, to inspect or otherwise have access to any document or material lodged with or held by the Tribunal for the purposes of any application; and
(b)make any other order contemplated by this section.
The Purchasers sought orders that the Tribunal direct that all parties provide Jebb Legal with copies of documents they had filed with the Tribunal and that the Purchasers have access to documents held by the Tribunal that relate to:[18]
(a)the adequacy of the Contract price;
(b)the selling process and marketing campaign conducted by the Agent;
(c)any valuation evidence;
(d)the circumstances surrounding the Contract formation and execution;
(e)evidence regarding RZ's capacity when the Contract was signed; and
(f)all submissions made by EZ regarding the transaction.
[18] Submissions dated 10 October 2025 filed by Jebb Legal.
I will not make an order for the parties to provide the Purchasers with documents or authorise the Purchasers to have access to the documents held by the Tribunal. I am satisfied that it is not in RZ's best interests to do so as the Purchasers are on the 'other side' of the transaction involving RZ.
In the event that the administrator made a s 82 application to set aside the Contract, the administrator would be required to disclose to the Purchasers the documents and evidence it sought to rely on to support that application.
Orders
The Tribunal orders:
1.The application of [NB] and [JB] for costs pursuant to s 87 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) is dismissed.
2.The application of [NB] and [JB] to access to documents pursuant to s 112(4) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) is refused as it is not in the represented person's best interests.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER
27 OCTOBER 2025
0
1
2