Zaharuiko v Public Trustee

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Civil)

ZAHARUIKO v PUBLIC TRUSTEE

[2025] SASCA 106

Judgment of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey  (ex tempore)

19 September 2025

HEALTH LAW - GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY - ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS - SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

By a Notice of Appeal dated 16 June 2025, the applicant sought to challenge orders made by the President of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal), which included refusing leave to proceed with an internal review and dismissing an application for review.

That decision was concerned with the review of an order made by the Tribunal approving the Public Trustee, as administrator for Mr Edwardes (the protected person), to sell the protected person’s house at Waterfall Gully in order to meet various debts, including debts owed to the care facility in which the protected person had lived for the last few years.

The protected person later died on 11 or 12 July 2025.

A single judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia remitted the appeal and a part-heard interlocutory application back to the Court of Appeal.

The issue before this Court was whether there remains any utility in the proposed appeal, or the part‑heard interlocutory application, seeking a raft of orders concerning the care and welfare of the protected person, and concerning his Waterfall Gully property.

Held, summarily dismissing the appeal and the interlocutory application:

1.There is no utility in the appeal or the interlocutory application.  The property the subject of the proceeding has been sold and, subject to meeting any obligations which may have accrued before the death of the protected person, it will be necessary for the Public Trustee to account for the sale proceeds to those administering his deceased estate.

2.None of the matters raised in the notice of appeal or the interlocutory appeal have any reasonable prospect of succeeding.  There is no prospect that permission to appeal will be given, or that interlocutory relief will be granted.

3.This is a proper case in which to summarily dismiss the appeal and the interlocutory application.

4.      The applicant must pay the costs of the respondent, which are agreed in the amount of $500.

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) s 71; Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 212.5, referred to.
Luca v Eckert (No 2) [2024] SASCA 136; Miojlic v City of Onkaparinga Council [2025] SASCA 2, considered.

ZAHARUIKO v PUBLIC TRUSTEE

[2025] SASCA 106

Court of Appeal: Civil – Livesey ACJ

Introduction

1. I have called this matter over today because it has been referred back to the Court of Appeal by a judge of the General Division.  The protected person, Mr Edwardes, died on 11 or 12 July 2025.  The issue is whether there remains any utility in the proposed appeal, or the part-heard interlocutory application, seeking a raft of orders concerning the care and welfare…