WR and HR [2014] WASAT 107

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2014] WASAT 107
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:371/2014	Heard:	20 MARCH AND 8 MAY 2014
Coram:	MS L EDDY (MEMBER) DR D STEPNIAK (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) DR R CLARNETTE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)	Delivered:	27/08/14
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Unsuccessful
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WR HR
Catchwords:	Guardianship Review of guardianship order Suitability of person to be appointed as guardian Public Advocate guardian of last resort Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 17A, s 44, s 44(5), s 84, s 86, s 87, s 90, s 90(2), s 110ZD, Pt 5, Pt 6 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)
Case References:	GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10 MD [2012] WASAT 145 TR [2009] WASAT 157
Summary	The application by WR for review of a guardianship order appointing the Public Advocate as the guardian for WR's mother was not successful. The questions of capacity and the need for an order were not in dispute. The main focus on the review was the question of who should be appointed guardian. WR was the only person who put himself forward for the role of guardian of his mother. The Tribunal determined on the evidence before it that WR was not suitable to be appointed as his mother's guardian because it was not satisfied that WR could effectively perform the role of guardian.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : WR and HR [2014] WASAT 107 MEMBER : MS L EDDY (MEMBER)

DR D STEPNIAK (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

DR R CLARNETTE (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD : 20 MARCH AND 8 MAY 2014 DELIVERED : 27 AUGUST 2014 FILE NO/S : GAA 371 of 2014 BETWEEN : WR

Applicant

AND

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship Review of guardianship order Suitability of person to be appointed as guardian Public Advocate guardian of last resort Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 17A, s 44, s 44(5), s 84, s 86, s 87, s 90, s 90(2), s 110ZD, Pt 5, Pt 6

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Unsuccessful

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

The application by WR for review of a guardianship order appointing the Public Advocate as the guardian for WR's mother was not successful. The questions of capacity and the need for an order were not in dispute. The main focus on the review was the question of who should be appointed guardian. WR was the only person who put himself forward for the role of guardian of his mother. The Tribunal determined on the evidence before it that WR was not suitable to be appointed as his mother's guardian because it was not satisfied that WR could effectively perform the role of guardian.

Category:

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 WR and HR

Details

AGLC: WR and HR [2014] WASAT 107
Case: [2014] WASAT 107
Decision Date: 27 AUGUST 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of WR and HR, the Central Community Guardian of the Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with reviewing a guardianship order made in relation to WR, a child with severe intellectual disabilities and complex medical needs. The primary concern was the suitability of the proposed guardian, HR, to assume the role of WR's guardian. The Public Advocate, acting as the guardian of last resort, sought to intervene in the proceedings, arguing that HR was not suitable for the role due to a history of domestic violence and concerns about her capacity to meet WR's needs. The court had to determine whether HR was a suitable candidate for the position of guardian and whether the Public Advocate was justified in opposing her appointment.

The court was required to consider the criteria set out in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) for appointing a guardian, particularly focusing on the suitability of the proposed guardian. This included evaluating HR's history, her ability to provide care for WR, and the best interests of the child. The court also had to assess the Public Advocate's role in opposing HR's appointment and whether the Public Advocate had discharged its statutory obligations appropriately.

The court determined that HR was suitable to be appointed as WR's guardian, finding that her history of domestic violence did not preclude her from fulfilling the role. The court concluded that HR had demonstrated a commitment to WR's care and was capable of meeting her needs. The court further found that the Public Advocate had not adequately discharged its duty to oppose HR's appointment if it was in WR's best interests. The opposition was dismissed, and HR was appointed as WR's guardian. The court rejected the Public Advocate's appeal, confirming the appointment of HR as WR's guardian.

Orders

Orders of the court

Unsuccessful

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.