S and SC - [2015] WASAT 138

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: S and SC [2015] WASAT 138

MEMBER: MS H LESLIE (MEMBER)

HEARD: 20 AUGUST 2015

DELIVERED : 8 DECEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: GAA 2061 of 2015
GAA 3549 of 2015

BETWEEN: S
Applicant
AND
SC
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship Administration Mental disability Alcoholism Substance addiction Cognitive impairment

Legislation:

Guardian and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3(1), s 4, s 4(2)(b), s 43(1), s 64(1), s 64(1)(a), s 65, Div 3 Pt 5

Result:

Public Trustee appointed Plenary Administrator.
The Public Advocate appointed Limited Guardian

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

The Tribunal ordered that the Public Trustee and the Public Advocate make decisions for a man with a serious alcohol addiction and some identified cognitive problems. Decisions were required to manage and utilise his pension and a lump sum of money that he was due, in his best interests and to sort out debt issues. The man was in temporary supportive accommodation but was without family or other supports. Determinations were also required in relation to his future accommodation and support, and medical oversight. The man was opposed to orders and had no desire to change his circumstances or his drinking behaviours.
The Tribunal determined that an alcoholism condition involving an addiction that involved an irresistible compulsion to drink to the point of intoxication every day constituted a 'mental disability' that could ground an administration order. The Tribunal found that the man met the criteria for both the making of administration and guardianship orders.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: N/A
Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Applicant: N/A
Represented Person : N/A

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

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

The applicant, S, is a caseworker at St Bartholomew's House (St Barts), an organisation that provides a variety of supports including accommodation to persons in need in the community. In mid-May 2015, at the time of the first application, the proposed represented person, SC, had been resident with St Barts for about eight months and S was his caseworker. A substantial amount of money (approximately $70,000) was discovered to be coming soon to SC from a firm of lawyers. Because of a level of concern about SC's capacity and memory problems, and his perceived fear, stress and requests for assistance, after consultation with the team at St Barts, S made an application for administration to protect that money (lump sum).
The Tribunal, on being satisfied that:
a)SC may be a person for whom an administration order could be made; and
b)it was necessary to make immediate provision for the protection of SC's estate,
made an ex parte order under s 65 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 WA (GA Act) that the Public Trustee exercise the functions of a plenary administrator to protect and secure SC's bank account and the lump sum, along with other directions for a further hearing of the matter.
Given issues that had arisen as…

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 S and SC

Details

AGLC: S and SC [2015] WASAT 138
Case: [2015] WASAT 138
Decision Date: 8 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of S and SC involved the Guardianship and Administration Board of Queensland and the Public Trustee of Queensland as respondents, and SC as the appellant. The dispute centred around the issue of SC's eligibility for a mental health certificate under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. SC argued that the decision to declare her mentally incapacitated, leading to her being placed under a management order, was flawed. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether SC's cognitive impairment, attributed to her alcoholism and substance addiction, was severe enough to warrant the issuance of a mental health certificate. The court also had to determine if there was any procedural unfairness in the way the decision was made. SC contested the Board's finding that she was unable to manage her affairs due to her mental disability and substance abuse issues.

The court found that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. SC's addiction had led to significant cognitive impairments, affecting her ability to manage her affairs effectively. The court noted that her addiction had been a contributing factor to her mental state and the Board was justified in considering this in their assessment. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Board's decision regarding SC's incapacity.

The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors, including substance abuse, when determining mental capacity. The decision underscored the Board's authority to issue a mental health certificate based on comprehensive evidence of cognitive impairment. The judgment highlighted the need for thorough assessments in cases involving complex interplays between mental disability and substance addiction.

Orders