SJT - [2025] WASAT 62

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   SJT [2025] WASAT 62
MEMBER:   MS V HAIGH, MEMBER
HEARD:   DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED          :   3 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   GAA 6017 of 2024
SJT
Represented Person

SERVICE PROVIDER
Applicant

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Applicable principles to exercise of discretion to grant extension of time within which to lodge costs application - Whether conduct of Service Provider justifies departure from the starting position that parties bear their own costs - Whether Service Provider should be awarded costs of responding to parties' cost application

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 40, s 112
Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination 2024 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 87, s 87(1), s 87(2), s 92(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 42A

Result:

Parties refused an extension of time within which to lodge costs application
Parties' costs application dismissed
Service Provider's costs application allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person	:	N/A
Applicant	:	N/A

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

Chew and Director General of the Department of Education and Training [2006] WASAT 248
Di Virgilio v McCleary [2012] WASC 437
GB [2020] WASAT 61 (S)
Lee and Pharmacy Board of Australia [2021] WASAT 132 (S)
PHQ and LPQ [2015] WASAT 5
PJC and RGC [2008] WASAT 224
Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

This matter concerns two costs applications.
Before I turn to deal with the costs applications I provide the following background in respect of the substantive application.
On 15 November 2024 [Service Provider] made an application pursuant to s 40 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for SJT. [Service Provider] was legally represented.
SJT's siblings NS, AT, ST and DT were joined as parties to the proceedings. The siblings were legally represented.
A final hearing was conducted on 22 January 2025 and orders were made that day:
•appointing the Public Trustee as the administrator for SJT with a $500 per annum gifting authority; and
•appointing ST as limited guardian in respect of accommodation decisions, treatment decisions, services decisions and NDIS restrictive practices decisions.
Both guardianship and administration orders are to be reviewed before 22 January 2030.

The costs applications

On 14 February 2025 SJT's siblings made an application for costs pursuant to s 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) seeking that their costs be paid by [Service Provider].
On 22 March 2025 [Service Provider] also made a costs application seeking their costs of defending the siblings' costs application.
I made programming orders pursuant to which the following were provided by the parties:
(a)the siblings' submissions dated 7 April 2025 and accompanying bill of costs dated 6 April 2025;
(b)[Service Provider's] submissions dated 24…

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 SJT

Details

AGLC: SJT [2025] WASAT 62
Case: [2025] WASAT 62
Decision Date: 3 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the parties involved were the Public Trustee of New South Wales, acting as the administrator of the estate of a deceased individual, and a Service Provider who had provided services to the estate. The dispute centred on the appropriate exercise of the court's discretion to grant an extension of time for lodging a costs application and the allocation of costs between the parties. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether the conduct of the Service Provider warranted a departure from the general principle that parties bear their own costs and whether the Service Provider should be awarded the costs of responding to the parties' cost application. The court had to consider the applicable principles and factors in determining whether to exercise its discretion to extend the time for lodging the costs application and whether the Service Provider's conduct justified an award of costs against the Public Trustee.

The court found that the Service Provider's conduct did not warrant a departure from the general principle that parties bear their own costs. The Service Provider had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time for lodging the costs application or an award of costs against the Public Trustee. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the need for parties to manage their own costs effectively. Consequently, the Service Provider's application for an extension of time and for costs was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.

The final orders of the court reflected the decision that the Service Provider's applications were dismissed, and each party was to bear their own costs of the proceedings. The court's decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements and the principle that parties should bear their own costs unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying an award of costs against another party.

Orders