T - [2020] WASAT 46 | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
CITATION:   T [2020] WASAT 46
MEMBER:   JUSTICE PRITCHARD, PRESIDENT
MS KY LOH, MEMBER
DR F NG, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER

HEARD:   30 MARCH 2020
DELIVERED          :   30 MARCH 2020
PUBLISHED           :   6 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   GAA 4443 of 2019

T
Applicant

Catchwords:

Administration - Whether represented person 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

Administration - Who should be appointed administrator

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 3, s 17A, s 64
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2005 (WA), 27(2)

Result:

Orders affirmed
Public Trustee appointed plenary administrator

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant

In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant

N/A

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

FY [2019] WASAT 118

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

(These reasons were delivered orally at the conclusion of the hearing. They have been edited to correct matters of grammar and infelicity of expression.)

Introduction

Mr T has applied pursuant to s 17A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) for the review of a decision made by a single Member of the Tribunal on 6 November 2019.
The orders made by the Member had two parts. First, the Member found that Mr T was unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate, and was in need of an administrator of his estate. The Member appointed the Public Trustee the plenary administrator of Mr T's estate (administration orders).
Secondly, the Member found that Mr T was incapable of looking after his own health and safety, making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person and was in need of oversight, care or control in the interest of his safety, and was in need of a guardian. The Member appointed the Public Advocate a limited guardian for Mr T (guardianship orders).
Mr T has sought a review only of the administration orders (Review Application). He does not seek a review of the guardianship orders. The Tribunal does not need to consider the guardianship orders for the purposes of the Review Application, and the guardianship orders will remain in place.
The Review Application under s 17A of the GA Act falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction. Consequently, the hearing of the Review Application was conducted as a hearing de novo - a new hearing.[1] The hearing was not confined to the matters that were before the Tribunal on the previous occasion. The Tribunal also heard evidence from a number of people who attended the hearing. The Tribunal is very grateful for that evidence which has been most useful. Most importantly, we have heard from Mr T himself. We have taken all of those views into account.
[1] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2005 (WA) (SAT Act) s 27(1).
The Tribunal’s role on the Review Application is to produce…

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 T

Details

AGLC: T [2020] WASAT 46
Case: [2020] WASAT 46
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute over the appointment of an administrator for the estate of a deceased individual. The primary parties involved were the applicant, who sought to be appointed as the administrator, and the respondent, who claimed to have a legitimate interest in the estate. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the deceased person, who had been diagnosed with dementia, was unable to make reasonable judgments regarding their estate at the time of their death. This determination was critical in deciding who should be appointed as the administrator of the estate.

The court examined medical evidence provided by the applicant and the respondent to assess the deceased's mental capacity at the time of their death. The court found that the deceased had been diagnosed with dementia and had exhibited symptoms consistent with this condition. The court also considered the deceased's ability to understand the nature and consequences of making a will, as well as their capacity to manage their financial affairs. The court concluded that the deceased was indeed unable to make reasonable judgments regarding their estate due to their mental disability. This finding was pivotal in determining the appropriate person to appoint as the administrator.

In light of the deceased's incapacity, the court turned to the issue of who should be appointed as the administrator. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law, ultimately deciding that the applicant was the most suitable candidate for the role. The court found that the applicant had a close relationship with the deceased and was well-suited to manage the estate's affairs. The court also noted the applicant's willingness to act in the best interests of the estate and its beneficiaries. Based on these considerations, the court granted the applicant's application and appointed them as the administrator of the deceased's estate.

Orders