P [2026] WASAT 80

[2026] WASAT 80 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : P [2026] WASAT 80 MEMBER : MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER HEARD : 11 MAY AND 8 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 10 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : GAA 1317 of 2026 P Represented Person P Applicant Catchwords: Administration - Acquired brain injury - Definition of mental disability - High premorbid intelligence - Weight given to medical opinions of professionals - Significant memory impairment - Best interests of represented person - Evidence of impaired judgment in 'read world' - Financial vulnerability - Romance-seeking behaviour - Romance scam activity - Online messaging platform - Social media algorithm - Continuing risk of victimisation Legislation: Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(5), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 64(1)(a), s 68, s 68(1), s 68(1)(b), s 68(1)(c), s 68(1)(d), s 68(3)(b), s 68(3)(d), s 86 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2), s 32(4) -- 1 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 2 Result: Public Trustee reappointed as administrator Category: B Representation: Counsel: Represented Person : In Person Applicant : In Person Solicitors: Represented Person : N/A Applicant : N/A Case(s) referred to in decision(s): FY [2019] WASAT 118 XYZ (Guardianship) [2007] VCAT 1196 -- 2 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Summary 1 This proceeding is a review, under s 86 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act), of the administration order I made for P on 17 February 2026 (Order). P is aged in his 70s and was involved in a serious vehicle accident in 2019. He now lives with an acquired brain injury. P says the brain injury was minor and his physical impairments pose more of a problem for him in terms of daily functioning. P is seeking the revocation of the Order as he says he can manage his own finances. 2 Tragically, P's wife of over 40 years died in the accident. P has four daughters with his late wife, being K, S, B and J. P's daughters all live interstate. P previously lived in State B and only moved to Western Australia in October 2025. 3 P's new wife is N. They married in November 2021 and separated three years later. During the separation, P was a victim of scamming activity and lost around $41,000. The scamming stopped when P broke his ankle and spent seven weeks in hospital. As he could not transfer funds online or attend a bank or ATM, the scammers left him alone. P was discharged from hospital in August 2025. He reconciled with N in September and moved to Western Australia to live with N in Town A in October. 4 P and N want to purchase a home in Town A (Property) and start a business together. P and N strongly believe P is capable of managing his own finances. In December 2025, P's daughters made an application to the Tribunal seeking the appointment of an administrator for P due to various concerns about the purchase of the Property. On 24 December 2025, the Tribunal appointed P's daughter K, a practising solicitor, as his plenary administrator. 5 Three weeks later, K advised the Tribunal she could not continue in the role and asked the Tribunal to appoint a new administrator. On 17 February 2026, I appointed the Public Trustee as P's plenary administrator. 6 P obtained a new capacity assessment from Dr D in April 2026. Dr D considers support and oversight from N will eliminate any risk to P's finances. However, unbeknown to Dr D, P spent almost $9,000 on -- 3 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 4 online messaging in March 2026 and overdrew his account by $1,000. P did not remember doing so and believed he had been scammed again. 7 For the reasons set out below, I will reappoint Public Trustee as P's plenary administrator for five years. Principles to be observed by the Tribunal 8 The primary concern of the Tribunal when making decisions under the GA Act is the best interests of the person for whom the application was made, P.1 The Tribunal must ascertain P's views and wishes, as far as possible.2 9 The starting point for the Tribunal is that every person is presumed to be capable of looking after their own health and safety, managing their own affairs and making reasonable judgments about matters relating to their estate and their person.3 If this 'presumption of capacity' is set aside by cogent evidence, the Tribunal can consider making an administration order. 10 Considering the seriousness of the consequences for a represented person that flow from a finding by the Tribunal of incapacity, or the consequences of the Tribunal failing to identify an incapable person in need of protection, the Tribunal must make findings of fact about capacity by reference to evidence from a wide variety of sources, including the evidence of medical and allied health professionals and also to lay evidence.4 In addition, the Tribunal may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit, and is not bound by the rules of evidence, which ensures, as far as possible, that all relevant information can be considered in order to make the correct decision in the best interests of the proposed represented person.5 11 The Tribunal must consider whether P's needs could be met by other means less restrictive on his freedom of decision and action.6 If the Tribunal makes an order, the order must impose the least restrictions possible.7 1 GA Act, s 4(2). 2 GA Act, s 4(7). 3 GA Act, s 4(3). 4 XYZ (Guardianship) [2007] VCAT 1196 (XYZ) at [66]. 5 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2) and s 32(4). 6 GA Act, s 4(4). 7 GA Act, s 4(5) and s 4(6). -- 4 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 5 12 When making this decision, I have taken into account the evidence filed with the Tribunal since December 2025 and the evidence given at the Tribunal hearings in December 2025 and February, May and June 2026. The evidence I have relied on is summarised in these reasons. Issues 13 The issues I must determine are: (a) whether P lacks the capacity to make decisions about his financial matters; (b) if so, whether there is a need to make an order, or whether there is another way for decisions to be made that is less restrictive on P's freedom of decision and action; (c) if orders are needed, who the administrator will be and the functions or powers they require; and (d) when the order will be reviewed. 14 The most contentious issue for the Tribunal to determine in this review is whether P lacks the capacity to manage his own finances. P's views and wishes 15 The Tribunal must ascertain P's views and wishes, as expressed or gathered from his previous actions.8 P was very clear that he does not need an administrator. P explained that his IQ before the accident was very high, and even after the accident, it is still higher than most. He is educated, has successfully worked in different fields and has written numerous books. P denies any concerns about his cognitive functioning or memory. 16 P's wish, if I decide to appoint an administrator, is that I appoint N. P would also accept the appointment of his daughter K, but N advised she would not speak to any of P's daughters if P agreed for K to be his administrator. K therefore did not propose herself for appointment as P's administrator. 8 GA Act, s 4(7). -- 5 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 6 Capacity to manage finances 17 To appoint an administrator, the Tribunal must be satisfied that P is currently unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate.9 18 At law a mental disability includes an acquired brain injury.10 As explained in FY:11 27 The ordinary meaning of the term 'mental disability' in the GA Act thus contemplates that a person's mind is affected by an impairment, incapacity or inability to function in a manner, or within a range, considered normal, or which is objectively measurable … … 31 … the definition of 'mental disability' does not require any precise degree of mental disability, measured by reference to some medical or scientific benchmark … … 32 … A finding that a person has a 'mental disability' may, of course, be referrable to the existence of one, or a combination of more than one, identified medical conditions. In other cases, the underlying cause of a person's mental disability may not be entirely clear, or susceptible to a particular medical diagnosis, but the existence of the mental disability may be beyond doubt. 19 The Tribunal must be satisfied that the mental disability causes the person to be unable to manage their finances. For a person to be able to manage their finances, they must have the cognitive ability necessary to reason and the memory to retain information relevant to the decisions to be made. 20 The Tribunal will make findings of fact about decision-making capacity by reference to expert evidence and also to lay evidence. As noted in XYZ, which is a Victorian case about a man who lived with an acquired brain injury following a stroke:12 The most appropriate way to assess how someone functions in the real world after an injury or insult is to move in with them for a month and 9 GA Act, s 64(1)(a). 10 GA Act, s 3. 11 FY [2019] WASAT 118 at [27], [31] and [32]. 12 XYZ at [66]. -- 6 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 7 watch how they cope in their daily lives, but how many clinicians have the time, patience or interest to undertake such an assessment? 21 While it is unrealistic to move in and observe someone for a month, the assessment of a person's judgment and vulnerabilities should be based on observation and a review of the outcomes of the person's choices and actions in the real world, in addition to expert evidence. Neuropsychology report prepared by Ms C 22 P's daughters asked neuropsychologist Ms C to assess P as they were concerned about his financial vulnerability following the romance scams that occurred from March to July 2025. P's daughters had observed a decline from at least 2024 onwards in P's judgment, ability to perceive risk, impulse control and ability to forward plan. They were also concerned about what they saw as an impulsive decision to sell his home in State B, move to Western Australia and purchase the Property with N. Ms C met with P twice in October 2025 and issued her report on 10 December 2025. 23 Ms C's report describes a capacity assessment prepared in March 2020 by neuropsychologist Dr H, who found that P had intact cognitive functioning across most domains, mild to moderate impairments in some domains and severe impairments with, among other things: (a) initial registration and new learning of unstructured verbal information; and (b) delayed memory. 24 Dr H determined that P lacked the capacity to make complex financial decisions so in November 2020, when P received a compensation payment, it was paid to the Public Trustee in State B. In 2021, a further neuropsychology report prepared by Professor M indicated that P had the capacity to manage his finances independently, despite some ongoing challenges with insight. In 2023, the order appointing the State B Public Trustee was revoked and P regained control of his finances. Results of Ms C's assessment 25 Ms C concluded that while P experiences weaknesses in some cognitive domains, he demonstrated exceptionally strong cognitive functioning across many domains, particularly in his crystalised verbal -- 7 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 8 knowledge, abstract reasoning and mental arithmetic skills. His reasoning and problem-solving abilities were intact on formal testing, but she noted his approach to problem solving was marked by impulsivity and challenges reaching a solution in an organised, well-planned manner. 26 Ms C's opinion is that P has severe impairments in the following areas of cognitive functioning: (a) immediate auditory attention, meaning it is difficult for P to concentrate on what people are saying and remember it straight away; (b) information processing speed, meaning P can understand information but may need more time to take in information, understand it and respond to it; (c) planning, organising and strategising when solving complex problems, meaning P may find it difficult to work out the steps needed to complete complicated tasks and resolve an issue; and (d) aspects of memory relating to new learning, immediate and delayed recall and delayed recognition, meaning P has serious difficulty when learning and remembering new information. 27 Ms C commented on P's limited insight, as he does not recognise his own limitations. As he is very articulate, there is a risk people and institutions may assume P has the capacity to make financial decisions if they are not provided with further information regarding the difficulties he has and his history of financial vulnerability. 28 Ms C concludes that while P demonstrates strong cognitive functioning across many domains, he has a number of cognitive deficits when compared to his premorbid functioning. While many of the results of P's tests are within the 'normal' range for his age, this reflects a significant departure from P's previously high level of functioning. 29 Most importantly, Ms C noted several of P's cognitive abilities, particularly attention, memory and executive functions, had declined since his assessment in 2020. Ms C viewed this decline as inconsistent with the recovery trajectory of a brain injury and may indicate new or complicating factors contributing to the difficulties P is now experiencing. Ms C recommended P undergo further testing, in at least 12 months, if there is a noticeable decline in his cognitive functioning. -- 8 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 9 Assessment by psychiatrist Dr D 30 P and N met with Dr D on 30 April 2026 for one telehealth appointment of 64 minutes. Dr D viewed P's desire to purchase the Property and start a business with N as consistent with his long-held beliefs related to his previous work history. Dr D did not view the plan as reckless when viewed in context. P's decision to sell his home, move interstate and start a business with N are appropriate responses to his circumstances, in Dr D's view, and congruent with who P has always been. 31 Dr D was critical of Ms C's comparison of P's test results to his estimated pre-morbid functioning when there was no testing of his functioning prior to 2019. Dr D viewed the comparison as potentially inflating the apparent degree of decline. Dr D was also critical of Ms C's reliance on a questionnaire completed by K, which in Dr D's view, lacked clinical impartiality. 32 Dr D acknowledged P has a demonstrated history of poor judgment relating to financial loss and resistance to accepting advice that contradicts his immediate goals. Dr D noted P's communication style, being verbose and grandiose, appeared to be a longstanding personality trait rather than a symptom of an acute psychiatric illness. 33 In terms of the romance scams, Dr D's view was that the scams occurred during a period of extreme emotional distress following the death of P's first wife and a period of estrangement from N. Dr D opined that P's vulnerability appeared to be tied to loneliness and romance-seeking, which Dr D views as a situationally specific impairment rather than a generalised failure of financial judgment. 34 Dr D did not view P's vulnerability to scams as suggestive of a wider impairment. Dr D's view was that P may be vulnerable to scams due to his age, lengthy and happy marriage (meaning he had no previous exposure to or education regarding scams) and the potential impacts on his impulsivity due to the acquired brain injury. Dr D's view is that P's impulsivity can be mitigated by the ongoing support of N. 35 Dr D's view is that P's decisions are congruent with his pre-injury self and there is no psychiatric disorder driving his decisions. A plenary administration order is therefore not proportionate to the identified risks. Dr D agreed some form of oversight for complex financial decisions seemed warranted. Dr D was supportive of P regaining access to his finances with support from N to mitigate and eliminate any risk. -- 9 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 10 Conclusion in relation to expert evidence 36 I prefer Ms C's evidence to that of Dr D. Ms C had two in-person meetings with P and performed comprehensive testing on him. Ms C had access to the test results from Dr H's earlier report and was able to speak to P's family to obtain collateral information. Ms C's conclusion is consistent with the earlier report of Dr H which refers to the difficulty P has in encoding and retrieving new information, specifically: (a) initial learning of unstructured verbal information; and (b) problems with delayed memory, so information is not retained well over time as P cannot retain or retrieve information after a delay. 37 I met P and N in February, May and June 2026 for approximately 5 hours in total, along with all P's daughters and some of their partners. However, it was not until two specific matters were discussed in May and June that I was satisfied P was highly vulnerable and had significant memory deficits. The first was P spending almost $9,000 on an online messaging platform in 11 days, overdrawing his bank account (Account) and not remembering. The second was that P incorrectly believed I appointed his accountant Mr S as his administrator in February 2026. 38 Ms C's evidence is consistent with the problems I observed with P retaining and recalling information from the February hearing as well as other matters we discussed where he gave vague, dismissive, inconsistent or incorrect responses. 39 Due to the short period of time Dr D spent with P, he did not have the opportunity to observe P's memory firsthand. Dr D attempted to speak to Ms C about his review of P but was unable to reach her. K was unwilling to speak to Dr D due to the possibly that doing so would negatively impact on her relationship with her father, meaning Dr D was unfortunately unable to corroborate any of P's statements. 40 Further, Dr D was not provided with current and relevant information about the almost $9,000 that was transferred out of P's Account in the weeks prior to his review of P, which may have informed Dr D's view of the risk to P's finances and the utility of N's oversight. 41 I will next discuss how P and N were mistaken in their recollection that Mr S was appointed as P's administrator. -- 10 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 11 Appointment of the Public Trustee - 17 February 2026 42 I make the following findings of fact in paragraphs [43] to [48] in relation to the appointment of the Public Trustee in February 2026. 43 At the February hearing, I explained I would appoint the Public Trustee for six months to allow time for P to have a further capacity assessment. I suggested P think about who else may be willing and able to be appointed as his administrator. P suggested his accountant, Mr S. I recommended P contact Mr S to ask if he would agree to be P's administrator. 44 I explained that if Mr S consented to the appointment, he would need to attend a hearing so I could discuss what was involved with him. So if Mr S did agree to be the administrator, P would need to make a new application to the Tribunal to review the Order so then I could talk to Mr S in another hearing. In the meantime, I would appoint the Public Trustee as P's administrator. I gave reasons and pronounced the Order to appoint the Public Trustee, with the Order to be reviewed in six months. 45 When I was explaining the requirement of P speaking to Mr S first and then making a new application to the Tribunal to review the Order, P asked me to send him a text, so he did not have to remember what to do. Instead, I said I would explain the process to N. I told N she could post a letter to the Tribunal, or e-file the letter, to let us know P wanted to review the Order. 46 A few weeks later, P filed documents with the Tribunal to advise he had an appointment with Dr D for the capacity review and Mr S had agreed to be his administrator. P also asked, '[please] inform [Mr S] that his appointment has been accepted'.13 These documents were taken to be an application under s 86 of the GA Act to review the Order. 47 The matter was listed for hearing on 11 May 2026. On the morning of 11 May, Tribunal staff called Mr S to ask if he was attending the hearing. Mr S confirmed he was not attending and he did not want to be P's administrator. He was happy to assist P as his accountant only. 48 P and N attended the May hearing in person. K, S, B and B's husband R attended the hearing by telephone. At the May hearing, evidence was given that in March 2026, P had spent almost $9,000 on the online messaging platform Rondevo. I asked S to file copies of text 13 Submissions filed on 26 February 2026 and 3 March 2026 on matter GAA/265/2026. -- 11 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 12 messages between her and P sent when the transactions were discovered and I directed an order to the Public Trustee to file statements of P's Account. I adjourned the matter to 8 June 2026. 49 At the June hearing, P and N again attended in person. They told me they believed the following has occurred: (a) at the February hearing, I said Mr S could be P's administrator. They contacted Mr S by telephone after the hearing. He said he would be happy to be the administrator, so he was appointed as P's administrator; (b) while Mr S was the administrator, he had a relatively short telephone call with P and paid one bill for him. Mr S sent P an invoice for around $500 for the work performed as administrator. P and N thought that price was unacceptable, so P decided he did not want Mr S to be his administrator anymore; and (c) P sent information to the Tribunal saying he was not happy with Mr S being his administrator. He received information back from the Tribunal saying the Public Trustee would therefore be the administrator. 50 I clarified with P and N what happened at the February hearing, which is set out at [43] and [45] above. I suggested P and N may have misremembered what happened. P and N strongly objected and insisted they were correct as Mr S had been P's administrator. 51 This is a significant lapse in P's memory and comprehension. The February hearing involved over an hour of unstructured verbal information about the appointment of the Public Trustee and the process to seek a review of the Order so Mr S could be considered for appointment. I am satisfied P's misunderstanding and explanation of what he believed occurred at the February hearing is clear evidence of his memory impairment. Transactions with Rondevo - 17 to 27 March 2026 52 One month after I appointed the Public Trustee, P started transacting with Rondevo. Rondevo is a 'pay per message' platform where users buy credits to send messages to other users. Credits are purchased in USD for $9.99, $19.99, $49.00, $99.99 and $199.99, with each payment attracting an international transaction fee. -- 12 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 13 53 I make the following findings of fact in paragraphs [54] to [63] in relation to the circumstances surrounding the transactions with Rondevo. 54 At the February hearing, K advised that one of her final acts as administrator was to move $720,000 out of P's Account to another account to earn higher interest. There was a buffer of around $13,000 remaining in the Account for P to use for his day-to-day purchases. The $720,000 was later transferred to the Public Trustee, where (most of) it remains. 55 On 16 March 2026, the balance of the Account was $8,574.85. The transactions with Rondevo over the next 11 days are summarised as follows: Date $9.99 $19.99 $49.99 $99.99 $199.99 No Total AUD 17.3.26 (T) 1 1 2 $44.45 18.3.26 (W) 1 2 3 1 1 8 $734.06 19.3.26 (T) 8 10 3 2 23 $2,005.91 20.3.26 (F) 8 3 2 13 $753.59 21.3.26 (S) 4 8 7 19 $1,743.66 22.3.26 (S) 6 6 5 17 $1,359.41 23.3.26 (M) 1 4 5 $665.00 24.3.26 (T) 1 1 $149.79 25.3.26 (W) 3 3 6 $313.23 26.3.26 (T) 3 3 $447.24 27.3.26 (F) 2 3 3 8 $736.19 TOTAL 2 34 37 29 3 105 $8,952.53 56 On 27 March 2026, the Account was overdrawn by $1,008.49. 57 On Saturday 28 March 2026, P and N tried to buy lunch, but P's card was declined. As S can view P's accounts online, P messaged S to ask: Hi [S]. I got a transaction declined on my debit card. The account should have over $700k in it. So I went to the local ATM, it told me my balance was NEGATIVE. Can you please get into my accounts and send me the balances of ALL the accounts. I suspect SOMEONE has STOLEN all my money! … 58 S responded with the balances requested and said: -- 13 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 14 Hey Dad, are you on an app called Rondevo??? It looks like lots of payments coming out and a lot of international fees along with it P said: Yes. I've been on there. But it doesn't explain the missing 720000. Please send all balances … S said: I thought the Perth trustee put it all in a different account? I don't have access to any NEW accounts … The rondevo looks like it's a couple of thousand in a couple of weeks so be careful Dadda x P said: Being careful. But can you send. Balances of what you CAN see? 59 S sent the screenshots to P's phone. He asked S to email them to N, which she did. 60 On Sunday 29 March, P messaged S to say: The Public Trustee has taken all the money out of the [Account]. So I can't use my card to buy fuel, or FOOD - not even a sandwich. It's actually ILLEGAL for them to deny me access to my pension money. 61 On Monday 30 March, S messaged P to say: Hey Dad, I've just calculated how much you've spent on that app and it's $8927 since the middle of February. I would encourage you to cease using it immediately because they're all transactions that you have made knowingly so I don't think you can get your money back. P said: Apparently they're a scam, and have taken all my money [two crying face emojis] 62 S emailed the Trust Manager at the Public Trustee to inform her of the situation and ask that P's access to Rondevo be removed. S also asked the Trust Manager to ask the Bank to cut off P's access from the Bank's side. -- 14 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 15 63 P's debit card was cancelled and the Public Trustee paid money to N for P's benefit until P received his new card. The Public Trustee disputed the transactions with the Bank and on 2 April, payments totalling approximately $4,500 were credited back into the Account. On 4 May 2026, the Public Trustee removed $4,162 from the Account for P's protection, leaving him with $2,000. Hearing of 11 May 2026 64 When asked, P initially denied any money had been taken out of his Account since the Public Trustee had been appointed. He also denied his card had been cancelled. However, N acknowledged the Public Trustee transferred money to her while P was waiting to receive a new card, as the old card had been 'compromised'. When asked why the Public Trustee was sending money to N, P acknowledged his card was cancelled. 65 When asked if he had been on the Rondevo app, P said he was, but he got rid of it before the Public Trustee was appointed. When asked when he did that, P could not recall. 66 P's view was that the situation was merely about his daughters wanting to get his money. Hearing of 8 June 2026 67 Prior to the June hearing, P and N inspected the new documents held by the Tribunal, being P's bank statements showing the Rondevo transactions and the text messages between P and S sent on 28, 29 and 30 March and set out at [57] - [61]. 68 At the hearing, P gave the following evidence: (a) he gave his bank details to Rondevo in 2025 before he reconciled with N; (b) he had not sent any messages on Rondevo since October 2025 when he moved to Western Australia to be with N; (c) he did not know Rondevo was continuing to take money out of his Account because he does not have access to online banking or his statements; (d) all the money transferred to Rondevo has been returned; and -- 15 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 16 (e) he was responsible for reporting the Rondevo transactions to the Bank. 69 I asked P if he told Dr D about the transfers to Rondevo when they met on 30 April. P said he could not tell Dr D because at that time, he did not know about it because he had not seen the bank statements. I reminded P that he did know about it because S told him in text messages in late March that around $8,900 had been transferred from his Account to Rondevo. S also sent P screenshots of the Rondevo transactions of 25 and 27 March. P said he thought that if the Bank was concerned, they would send him a statement, but he did not receive anything. 70 I asked N if she thought it was relevant to tell Dr D about P's money being transferred out of his Account. She confirmed that they did not know about it at that stage because they did not have access to the statements. N also said they only found out the $720,000 had been taken out of the Account by the Public Trustee after reviewing P's bank statements. Background to scamming activity - 2025 71 When P was scammed in 2025, he believed he was sending gift cards and transferring cash to two women, Victoria and Hannah, who had promised to marry or have a relationship with him. In three and a half weeks from late March to early April, P sent $17,520 to the scammers. K notified the Bank he was being scammed, so P's internet banking was restricted. To unblock his accounts, the Bank required P to attend the Bank in person so they could confirm he knew he was being scammed. On 22 April, P attended the Bank, agreed he had been scammed and regained access to his accounts. 72 On 25 April, P transferred $5,000 to Victoria in cash and purchased a $100 gift card. On 26 April, he purchased another $200 gift card. K alerted the Bank that P had been scammed again and his accounts were locked for six weeks while a fraud investigation occurred. P was only able to attend the Bank in person to withdraw his pension and dividend income. From late April to late May, P managed to send a further $2,310 to the scammers. On 22 May, the Bank removed P's online 'view' access. 73 On 9 June, P obtained a letter from his doctor to say he had capacity. On 16 June, the Bank deposited $4,557.70 recovered from the scams and gave P access to his bank accounts. P sold some shares and accessed his -- 16 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 17 superannuation. In the next two weeks, P withdrew the following funds to transfer to the scammers: Date Amount Method 16 June 2025 $300 Cash 17 June 2025 $300 Cash 18 June 2025 $1,000 Cash 19 June 2025 $1,500 Cash 20 June 2025 $500 Cash 23 June 2025 $6,000 Cash 24 June 2025 $1,500 Cash 30 June 2025 $300 Cash 1 July 2025 $900 Credit card TOTAL $12,300 74 On 1 July 2025, P fell and broke his ankle. He was in hospital until 19 August 2025. As he was unable to send any money to the scammers for seven weeks, they left him alone. In total, he had been scammed $41,350 in just over three months. P's position in relation to Rondevo 75 On 28 March, P confirmed in a text message to S that he was on Rondevo. P contends he joined Rondevo in 2025 and has not sent any messages since October when he reconciled with N. P argues Rondevo did not have his permission to withdraw funds from his Account in March. However, I do not accept P's position for three reasons. 76 First, K reviewed statements of all P's bank accounts for the last 7 years and did not identify a payment made to Rondevo prior to March 2026. K gave evidence that she provided a significant amount of oversight and assistance to P from the time of the accident, particularly in relation to legal claims relating to his injuries, administering her mother's estate and paying various bills and expenses for P. K has acted as P's enduring attorney pursuant to documents prepared in 2000 and 2025, in addition to being his administrator for around six weeks. I accept K's evidence that no documentary evidence exists that shows P transacted with Rondevo prior to 17 March 2026. -- 17 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 18 77 Second, P's behaviour from 17 to 27 March was significantly different from his usual behaviour. P's bank statements from January 2026 disclose visits to multiple places each day, often attending a café or the local hotel for a meal. P also regularly visited the post office, service stations and supermarkets. On average, there was around two or three purchases each day, save for Sundays, usually involving at least one attendance at a venue to eat or shop. 78 To compare P's usual behaviour and spending patterns with his spending from 17 to 27 March, the table below sets out the purchases recorded in P's bank statements from 9 March onwards:14 Date Rondevo No Purchases 09.3.26 (M) 1 Local café ($45) 10.3.26 (T) 3 Local café ($46), local hotel ($98), supermarket ($9) 11.3.26 (W) 2 Supermarkets ($14 and $19) 12.3.26 (T) 5 Café in Suburb M ($78), retail store in Town N ($348), two visits to local service station ($10, $33), Town G service station ($38) 13.3.26 (F) 4 Café in Suburb M ($78), supermarket ($18), two visits to service station ($33 and $60) 14.3.26 (S) 3 Local hotel ($86), supermarket ($83), service station ($42) 15.3.26 (S) 0 16.3.26 (M) 0 17.3.26 (T) $44.45 3 Local hotel ($7, $19 and $94) 18.3.26 (W) $734.06 0 'secretmeet.com' online dating platform 19.3.26 (T) $2,005.91 1 Supermarket ($19) 20.3.26 (F) $753.59 4 Service station ($41), pharmacy ($79), supermarket ($57, $121, $125, $6), store ($24) 21.3.26 (S) $1,743.66 0 22.3.26 (S) $1,359.41 0 23.3.26 (M) $665.00 1 Pharmacy ($72) 14 The table sets out the date, whether transactions with Rondevo occurred, the number of other purchases recorded on the statement, not including online purchases or the payment of bills, and a description of the purchase. -- 18 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 19 24.3.26 (T) $149.79 0 25.3.26 (W) $313.23 2 Service station ($65), local hotel ($74) 26.3.26 (T) $447.24 1 Service station ($15) 27.3.26 (F) $736.19 1 Service station ($50) Total $8,952.53 79 Based on what P was paying at cafés and the local hotel, it appears likely that P and N would eat out together up to five times per week. However, in the period P was engaging with Rondevo, he paid for a meal at the local hotel on the first day and did not pay for another meal at the hotel for eight days. P also did not pay for any meals at cafés when he was engaged with Rondevo. 80 When P was being scammed in 2025, he believed he was in relationships with two women. The evidence set out in [71] to [73] shows he spent a significant amount of time dealing with the Bank to obtain money and attend stores to purchase gift cards to satisfy their requests. 81 K has prepared detailed notes and chronologies to describe what was occurring at that time in terms of the conversations K was having with P and the Bank, and P's actions in transferring funds, buying gift cards, selling shares and accessing his superannuation. P also contacted family friends to ask them to buy gift cards and enlisted the help of neighbours to come to the Bank and say he was no longer sending money to the scammers. 82 I accept K's evidence as I consider she was open, honest and frank. She was a good historian and had a clear and consistent recollection of relevant events which was confirmed by the other documents filed with the Tribunal and the oral evidence of her sisters. Based on the detailed evidence provided by K, I accept P engaged with the task of satisfying Victoria's and Hannah's demands with an intensity not many people could manage, particularly someone with mobility issues like P. 83 I am satisfied that once P started messaging people on Rondevo, he applied the same level of attention and focus to the messaging activity, which would have involved a substantial time commitment. The bank statements demonstrate P was engaging in far less activity than usual outside of his home from 17 to 27 March. I am satisfied, and I find, that is because he was spending a significant amount of time on his telephone -- 19 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 20 sending and receiving messages on Rondevo. I do not accept P's contention he was unaware of the transactions at the time the money was being transferred from his Account to Rondevo, although I do accept he later forgot. 84 P concluded he was a victim of another scam. However, the scamming and messaging with Rondevo only stopped because of matters outside of his control, such as the card not working (because the money he could access ran out) or the intervention of the Bank, the Public Trustee or a broken ankle. 85 Third, P's significant memory impairment means his recollections are not accurate, as demonstrated by his belief that Mr S was his administrator. P also believed $720,000 had been stolen because he forgot K advised at the February hearing that she withdrew $720,000 from the Account to earn a higher interest rate. I am therefore unable to rely on P's recollection of events. Conclusion in relation to capacity to make financial decisions 86 As set out earlier, to appoint an administrator, I must be satisfied P is currently unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate. 87 Having regard to the evidence adduced in the present case, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, and I find, that P is a person who has a mental disability, which is the acquired brain injury. There is no doubt the acquired brain injury is the cause of P's inability to make reasonable judgments in respect of his estate. P's evidence, which I accept, is that he is educated, has been successful in a number of different fields, is a black belt in karate and has written numerous books. 88 The acquired brain injury and resulting memory impairment has caused significant gaps in P's memory so it is difficult for him to, among other things, encode and retrieve new information. For example, Ms C recounted that P told her that when he was scammed, he lost approximately $20,000, although it could have been more, but he could not recall the exact amount. 89 In terms of the impact on his estate, P paid almost $9,000 to Rondevo and the Bank was only able to return $4,500. P believes all the money has been returned because he cannot recall the specific information. The total spend on romance-seeking activities in 2025 -- 20 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 21 ($41,350) and 2026 ($8,952) is just over $50,000. P has only had around $9,000 returned by the Bank. 90 The most concerning difference between the scamming of 2025 and the Rondevo messaging in early 2026 is P's memory of his actions. He still recalls being scamming and the protective measures he put in place to avoid it happening again. P told Ms C, Dr D, all his daughters and the Tribunal that he is no longer vulnerable to financial scams because he blocked his previous scammers and no longer accepts any new friend requests on Facebook. He asserts that his relationship with N is a protective factor and if a woman asks him for money, he will say no. However, the recent experience with Rondevo sits outside of the protective framework P designed for himself. 91 While the scamming behaviour started with messages sent on Facebook in March 2025, P's romance-seeking behaviour is well-established and started soon after his recovery from the accident as follows: (a) P started a relationship with one of his carers L in November 2019. Their relationship ended in around March-April 2020; (b) he started a relationship with N in October 2020. They married in November 2021; (c) in December 2023, P was messaging 'Scarlett Johanssen' and 'Michelle Pfeiffer'; (e) P and N separated in September 2024; (f) in October 2024, P recommenced his relationship with L and she moved into his home from October 2024 to early 2025; (g) in early 2025, he started discussing reconciliation with N. The scamming activity started in March 2025 and ended on 1 July 2025; and (h) he was discharged from hospital in August, reconciled with N in September and moved to Western Australia in October. 92 While P's experience with Rondevo was not scamming, it is functionally identical as it was an all-consuming, impulsive behaviour driven by romance-seeking, without awareness or regard to the impact on his finances. While P's actions have changed, as he is not sending -- 21 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 22 money or gift cards to women, the underlying drivers of the behaviour and the risks to his estate are the same. 93 P's inability to recall, among other things: (a) the appointment of the Public Trustee, confabulation of Mr S's appointment and K's transfer of the $720,000 in February; (b) the Rondevo messaging in March; and (c) writing the Facebook message about the Telegram user in April, to be discussed shortly in these reasons, may be evidence of the new or complicating factor, hypothesised by Ms C, that is contributing to P's increasing difficulties. 94 Having regard to the extensive documentary and oral evidence provided to the Tribunal, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, and I find, the presumption of capacity has been displaced. P remains a person for whom I can appoint an administrator. Does the Tribunal need to make orders? 95 As I am satisfied of P's inability to make reasonable judgments in respect of his estate, there is no doubt he requires assistance to deal with his estate. The question, however, is not whether P needs assistance to manage his estate but whether he needs an administrator to be appointed for that purpose. When considering whether P needs an administrator to be appointed, I must adopt a less restrictive option if possible.15 Informal arrangement 96 P would not need an administrator if another person, such as a family member, was available to assist to make such decisions. Dr D suggested N would be able to support P on an informal basis. However, I am satisfied that informal arrangements are not sufficient for three reasons. First, any arrangement involving N will not function as she does not believe P needs assistance with his finances, so she is not inclined or motivated to provide oversight. 97 Second, there is significant conflict between the most important people in P's life, being N and his four daughters. As P lives with N in Western Australia and the four daughters live on the east coast, the only way an informal arrangement could work would be with the cooperation 15 GA Act, s 4(6). -- 22 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 23 of all five women. However, N does not work cooperatively with P's daughters. K gave evidence that when she was the administrator, N would not provide information to K that she needed to perform her role. I accept K's evidence. 98 Further, N does not accept P's daughters' concerns. P's daughters were so worried about his decisions in late 2025 they made the difficult decision to make the application to the Tribunal, knowing it would likely irreparably harm their relationship with him. When I asked N if she understood the concerns of P's daughters, she told me she thought they were all liars. I consider N's strong desire to support P undermines the reliability of her evidence, which I do not accept. 99 Third, P needs his substitute decision-maker to have the legal authority required to adequately protect him, which cannot be achieved informally. Enduring power of attorney 100 I am satisfied an enduring power of attorney (EPA) is not an appropriate option for P for four reasons. First, the lapses in P's memory mean he is likely to forget any documents signed or arrangements made. Second, P is likely to appoint N, and as she does not believe he needs any assistance with his finances, I am satisfied she will merely act on his instructions and not provide the independent thought required to protect him. 101 Third, an EPA signed when a donor has capacity operates in tandem to the authority of the donor, meaning P could still transact on his accounts in addition to the attorney doing so, which will not provide any protection. Fourth, an EPA can be revoked, which is what P has done in the past in respect of earlier EPAs he has signed, which would leave him without any protection. The need for protection 102 I am very concerned about P's continuing vulnerability as a target for scammers or to be enticed by online businesses to engage in expensive transactions involving the promise of romance. 103 On 18 March 2026, P paid $1 to 'secretmeet.com' which is an online dating platform. This payment means it is likely 'secretmeet.com' has P's contact details and may send him text messages or contact him in other ways to invite him to engage with the platform. -- 23 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 24 104 P is still on Facebook and the Facebook algorithm, like other social media algorithms, learns from a person's online activity, so the more a person interacts with a particular type of content, the more of that content they will see. This places P at significant risk of targeted advertising for online dating or messaging platforms due to his impulsivity and established romance-seeking behaviours. 105 On 16 April 2026, S noticed P had commented on his Facebook profile photo as follows: Dunno how to find my telegram user. Send me yours and I'll message you on telegram. Two hours later, N commented to say: Good morning [P]. Another messaging system, isn't one enough??? 106 At the June hearing, I asked P about putting the message on his profile photo and he said he did not remember doing it. N confirmed P is no longer accessing Telegram as it has been taken off his phone. This may be an example of N acting protectively, or acting possessively in the knowledge her husband was trying to message other people. While both reasons provide protection for P, the latter does not recognise the need for protecting P from behaviours he is unable to control or remember. 107 Removing Telegram does not mean P will not find another way to message people. The timeline suggests he started using Telegram in the weeks after he lost access to Rondevo. 108 It also does not mean P cannot be contacted by former or new scammers, as his telephone number and email address have still not been changed, despite P being advised to do so by his daughters on multiple occasions. 109 S gave evidence that in January 2026, P received an email from the scammer Victoria. S explained that as the scammer's old email address had been blocked, the scammer made a new email address to get around the block to try to communicate with P. S advised this has happened multiple times with the scammers continuing to try to contact P. I accept S's evidence and consider she was an honest and reliable witness who consistently acted to protect her father, even when doing so damaged her relationship with him. -- 24 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 25 110 I am therefore satisfied that informal arrangements are not appropriate in this case as P requires his decision-maker to have the legal authority to manage his estate and expertise to appropriately protect and assist him. 111 I am therefore satisfied on the evidence before me that there is no less restrictive way for financial decisions to be made in P's best interests other than by the appointment of an administrator. Who should be appointed as administrator? 112 When considering the appointment of an administrator, the Tribunal must hold the opinion that the administrator will act in P's best interests and is suitable to act as the administrator of his estate.16 When assessing suitability, the Tribunal must also have regard to, among other things, P's wishes and whether the nominee will be able to perform the functions to be vested in the administrator.17 113 N has proposed herself for appointment, which is consistent with P's wishes.18 I find that N is over the age of 18 years and she has consented to act as the administrator.19 However I am unable to appoint N as P's administrator. 114 I am satisfied, and I find, that N is unable to act in P's best interests as she lacks insight into his vulnerabilities. N does not believe P needs assistance with his finances and agrees with P's position that the only disability caused by the accident is physical. N acknowledges P becomes fatigued, but she has no concerns about his capacity. N is willing to be P's administrator, but as she views him as having the requisite capacity, she describes her appointment as 'hypothetical'.20 115 I am satisfied, and I find, that N is unable to perform the functions to be vested in the administrator as she also has problems with her memory. Like P, N was adamant that I appointed Mr S as P's administrator and did not recall the discussion about $720,000 being withdrawn from the Account in February. 116 Further, N did not recall that S emailed her the screen shots of the overdrawn Account on 28 March. It appears N did not recognise or understand the significance of the information that was sent to her which 16 GA Act, s 68(1)(c) and s 68(1)(d). 17 GA Act, s 68(3)(d). 18 GA Act, s 68(1)(b). 19 GA Act, s 68(1). 20 ts 46, 24 December 2025 in GAA/7202/2025. -- 25 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 26 is further evidence, in my view, of her inability to perform the functions of the administrator. 117 In my lengthy interactions with N and P, N has agreed with P in all matters and supported his view at every turn, save for the appointment of K as administrator. This means it is unlikely, in my view, that N could or would recognise if P was in danger, and even if she did, I am satisfied she would not take any action P did not agree with. 118 P requires his administrator to disagree with him if it means he will be protected. One of the most difficult parts of being appointed as a decision-maker for a loved one is making decisions which are against their wishes but necessary for their protection. 119 As I am unable to find N suitable for appointment as administrator, the only option open to the Tribunal is to reappoint the Public Trustee. What should the administrator's powers be? 120 The administration order will be a plenary order to ensure the administrator can deal with all aspects of P's estate in his best interests. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that P is highly vulnerable, impulsive and will continue his romance-seeking behaviours by contacting people on the internet. Once engaged in these behaviours, P is unable to control his actions or recognise the detrimental impact on his finances. He also cannot remember what he has done. 121 The Order authorised the Public Trustee to allow P to continue to receive his pension and dividend payments and manage the funds in the Account to pay day-to-day bills and necessary expenses. This was consistent with the arrangement established by K when she was the administrator. The Trust Manager suggested that due to P's vulnerability, the authorisation should be removed. I agree. The Public Trustee had already taken steps to redirect the dividend payments directly to the Public Trustee's common account to protect him and removed $4,162 from the Account as mentioned earlier. 122 As P was receiving his Centrelink pension and dividend payments into the Account and paying his own bills, the Public Trustee has not prepared a budget. As I will remove the authorisation, it will be open to the Public Trustee to prepare a budget in terms of P's expenses and determine a reasonable amount of discretionary spending money. The bank statements demonstrate that, even ignoring the transfers to -- 26 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 27 Rondevo, P's spending is higher than his income, which is not sustainable long-term. 123 I will include a gifting authority of $2,000 per year as P has a wife, four daughters and grandchildren for whom he may wish to purchase gifts. How long should the orders run before review? 124 The Tribunal is required to fix a period for the review of the order, the maximum time allowed being 5 years. The medical evidence is clear that P lives with an acquired brain injury. This is a permanent injury which neither P nor N accepts. 125 Ms C's testing indicated that several of P's cognitive abilities had declined since his assessment in 2020, and new or complicating factors may be contributing to P's presentation. I am satisfied on this basis and the events of 2026 recounted in these reasons that P's need for a substitute decision-maker will be lifelong. 126 It is unlikely the Tribunal will be able to appoint a family member as P's administrator in the future for two reasons. First, the conflict between N and P's daughters is unlikely to resolve in my view. Second, the desire to avoid any further harm to the important, supportive relationships in P's life, particular with his children as despite their best efforts, P's lack of insight means he is unlikely to ever accept or understand that he lives with a brain injury. 127 In order to reduce the distress felt by P when attending Tribunal hearings, I will put this order in place for the maximum term possible, being five years from today. Orders The Tribunal makes the following orders: 1. The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [P] is: (a) unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of his estate; and (b) in need of an administrator of his estate. -- 27 of 28 -- [2026] WASAT 80 Page 28 Administration 2. The administration order dated 17 February 2026 is revoked and substituted with the order below. 3. The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the represented person's estate with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). 4. The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $2,000 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person. 5. The Tribunal will provide the Public Trustee with copies of all documents on subject file 3251/2025. 6. The administration order is to be reviewed by 10 July 2031. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER 10 JULY 2026 -- 28 of 28 --