SM [2016] WASAT 49

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2016] WASAT 49
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:82/2016	Heard:	3 MARCH AND 12 APRIL 2016
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	9/05/16
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SM
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration Administration Protective legislation Capacity Mental disability Intellectual disability Intellectual disability and ability to function in community Ongoing ability to learn despite intellectual disability Presumption of capacity Clear and cogent evidence required to displace presumption of capacity Application dismissed
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 64, s 68, s 69, s 84
Case References:	GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10 Re The Full Board of the Guardianship and Administration Board [2003] WASCA 268
Summary	SM is a 49-year-old woman who was due to inherit a substantial sum of money as a beneficiary in the will of her late aunt.,SM's mother made an application to have an administrator appointed for SM to secure and manage the inheritance.,SM and her mother had been estranged for many years.,SM had been diagnosed by a child psychiatrist as having an intellectual disability when she was 16 years of age.,There was no current medical evidence before the Tribunal as to how SM's disability was impacting on her functioning.,SM's mother was concerned, based on past events, that SM was at significant risk of being exploited by others if she was given the inheritance.,What both the psychiatrist's assessment and the mother's evidence did not allow for was the extent to which SM might have matured and learnt from past mistakes. It was not suggested that SM had no ability to learn. ,The evidence before the Tribunal was that SM was currently functioning satisfactorily in the community. ,To SM's credit she had sought advice as to what effect the inheritance might have on her income and housing. She was pursuing ongoing advice from a specialist disability agency.,SM was consistent in her evidence as to how she intended to allocate the inheritance and there was nothing unreasonable or extravagant about what she proposed to do.,The Tribunal found that there were no guarantees from risk of exploitation but on the evidence it was considered to be an unfair restriction on SM's freedom of decision and action if an order was to be made 'just in case'.,The Tribunal accepted that the application made by SM's mother stemmed from a parental love and affection for SM and a genuine concern for her wellbeing.,The application for an administration order was dismissed.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : SM [2016] WASAT 49 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : 3 MARCH AND 12 APRIL 2016 DELIVERED : 9 MAY 2016 FILE NO/S : GAA 82 of 2016 MATTER : SM

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration Administration …

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 SM

Details

AGLC: SM [2016] WASAT 49
Case: [2016] WASAT 49
Decision Date: 9 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application for a declaration that SM, a woman with an intellectual disability, lacked the capacity to manage her financial affairs. The court was tasked with determining whether SM's intellectual disability impeded her ability to function in the community and whether she had the capacity to manage her financial affairs. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the relevant protective legislation and the application of the presumption of capacity.

The central legal issue was whether SM, despite her intellectual disability, possessed the capacity to manage her financial affairs. The court had to decide whether the presumption of capacity could be rebutted by evidence of her intellectual disability and if so, what standard of proof was required. The court also needed to assess whether SM's ongoing ability to learn despite her intellectual disability impacted her capacity to manage her affairs.

The court found that the presumption of capacity was not rebutted by SM's intellectual disability. The court held that the presumption of capacity could only be displaced by clear and cogent evidence, which was not presented. The court emphasised that ongoing ability to learn despite an intellectual disability did not necessarily indicate a lack of capacity to manage financial affairs. Given this, the court dismissed the application for a declaration of incapacity.

No further orders were made as the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.