T v State Administrative Tribunal - [2021] WASC 67

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   T -v- STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [2021] WASC 67
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
HEARD:   11 MARCH 2021
DELIVERED          :   11 MARCH 2021
FILE NO/S:   GDA 11 of 2020
BETWEEN:   T
Appellant
AND
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Coram: DEPUTY PRESIDENT SHARP
MEMBER K Y LOH
SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER S GILLETT

File Number : GAA 1311 of 2020

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration – Appeal from determination of State Administrative Tribunal to appoint guardian and administrator – Review of guardianship and administration orders by Tribunal imminent – Public interest in avoiding parallel proceedings – Leave to appeal refused

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Cases referred to in decision:

AS [2018] WASAT 1
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
SH v Chief Executive Officer of Department of Communities [2019] WASCA 31

QUINLAN CJ:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 11 March 2021 and has been edited for publication.)

Introduction

This is an application for leave to appeal from a determination of the State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (the Act).
On 1 April 2020, the Tribunal (consisting of one member), made guardianship and administration orders in relation to GG, a young man with autism spectrum disorder and an intellectual disability. The Public Trustee was appointed as GG's plenary administrator and the Public Advocate appointed as GG's limited guardian. On 2 and 3 July 2020, those orders were reviewed by the Full Tribunal, pursuant to s 17A of the Act. Following the review, the Full Tribunal affirmed the orders made by the single member.
The orders made by the Tribunal included an order that they be reviewed by 1 April 2021.
The applicant, Ms T, is GG's mother. She seeks leave to appeal the determination of the Tribunal dated 3 July 2020.
The particular course of events in the present case have meant that Ms T now faces parallel proceedings in relation to GG. That is, in this appeal, she seeks leave to appeal the correctness of the guardianship and administration orders and, at the same time those orders are to be the subject of a statutory review by the Tribunal.
There are a number of reasons for that situation having arisen. The period between the Tribunal's determination and review date (1 April 2021) was, as the Tribunal recognised, unusually short. The review by the Full Tribunal necessarily took time. Ms T's notice of appeal was filed out of time and she had difficulty obtaining transcripts of the proceedings before the Tribunal (including making further applications to the Tribunal for that purpose). I also recognise that this Court, too, must bear some of the responsibility for the delay…

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 v State Administrative Tribunal

Details

AGLC: T v State Administrative Tribunal [2021] WASC 67
Case: [2021] WASC 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of T v State Administrative Tribunal involves an appeal from a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) to appoint a guardian and administrator for GG, a young man with autism spectrum disorder and an intellectual disability. The Public Trustee was appointed as GG's plenary administrator, and the Public Advocate was appointed as GG's limited guardian. The applicant, Ms. T, is GG's mother, and she seeks leave to appeal the SAT's determination. The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether there was a prima facie case justifying an appeal and whether leave should be granted in light of the upcoming review proceedings.

The court considered the grounds of review and concluded that while the Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Act is broad, it is generally concerned with the correction of error and not intended to supplant the comprehensive review process provided for in the Act. The court observed that the grant of leave should not be regarded as a perfunctory exercise and should be granted if, in all of the circumstances, it is in the interests of justice that there should be a grant of leave.

In this case, the court found that the upcoming review to take place on 29 March 2021 would be a preferable course of action than an appeal to the Supreme Court, as it would be based on the most up-to-date information available and in the best interests of GG. The court also noted that it was not in GG's or Ms. T's interests for an appeal to be conducted in parallel with the review proceedings.

For these reasons, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court emphasized the importance of focusing on the future and participating in the proceedings before the Tribunal to provide the opportunity to carefully consider all of the issues under the Act with as much relevant information as possible.

Orders