SN [2026] WASAT 70

[2026] WASAT 70 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : SN [2026] WASAT 70 MEMBER : JUDGE F VERNON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT MR E CADE, MEMBER MS C CONLEY, MEMBER HEARD : 19 MARCH 2026 DELIVERED : 17 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : GAA 5283 of 2025 SN Represented Person PN Applicant Catchwords: Guardianship - Administration - Whether the represented person has capacity - Whether the represented person is in need of a guardian and administrator - Suitability for appointment as guardians and administrators - Appointment of plenary administrator - Appointment of limited guardian Legislation: Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(5), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 17A, s 40(1), s 43(1)(a), s 43(1)(b)(i), s 43(1)(b)(ii), s 43(1)(b)(iii), s 43(1)(c), s 44(1), s 44(1)(a), s 44(1)(b), s 44(1)(c), s 44(2)(a), s 44(2)(b), s 44(2)(d), s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 68(1), s 68(1)(c), s 68(1)(d), -- 1 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 2 s 68(3)(a), s 68(3)(c), s 72(1), s 110N, Sch 2, Pt B(h), Pt 5, Div 3 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(1), s 27(2) Result: JF appointed as plenary administrator PN appointed as limited guardian Category: B Representation: Counsel: Represented Person : In Person Applicant : Mr A Wilson Non-party : Ms L Madden Solicitors: Represented Person : N/A Applicant : Wilson Legal Non-party : Hale Legal Case(s) referred to in decision(s): FY [2019] WASAT 118 -- 2 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 By an application, under s 17A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act), PN seeks review of a decision made by a single member of the Tribunal on 21 August 2025, to make guardianship and administration orders in relation to his father, SN (represented person). 2 The Member's reasons for decision were delivered orally at the conclusion of a hearing held at the Tribunal on 21 August 2025 in GAA 3403 of 2025 and GAA 3404 of 2025 (original hearing). 3 We will refer to the various parties using the following expressions: • SN for the represented person; • MN for SN's deceased wife; • PN for SN's oldest son, who is the applicant in this proceeding; • MAN for SN's youngest son; • MM for SN's daughter; • FN for SN's brother. • RN for SN's sister; • AM for SN's sister; • KR for SN's carer; and • JF for SN's former bank manager. 4 Proceeding GAA 3403 of 2025 was an application made by the WA Country Health Service (WACHS) under s 110N of the GA Act. Proceeding GAA 3404 of 2025 was an application also made by WACHS but under s 40(1) of the GA Act. 5 In proceeding GAA 3403 of 2025 the Member revoked an enduring power of guardianship (EPG) made on 24 October 2020 by which SN appointed MN and MM as his joint enduring guardians and PN as substitute enduring guardian. 6 In proceeding GAA 3404 of 2025, the Member: -- 3 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 4 (1) declared that SN is: (a) unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of his estate; (b) in need of an administrator of his estate; (c) incapable of looking after his own health and safety; (d) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; (e) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety; and (f) in need of a guardian. (2) appointed the Public Trustee plenary administrator of SN's estate with authority to exercise the powers SN holds as the trustee of the [name redacted] Investment Trust; (3) revoked the enduring power of attorney made on 2 September 2009 (EPA) by which SN appointed MN to be his attorney and MM and PN as substitute attorneys; (4) appointed the Public Advocate limited guardian of SN with the following functions: (a) to decide where SN is to live, whether permanently or temporarily; (b) to decide with whom SN is to live; (c) to make treatment decisions for SN, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA); (d) to determine the services to which SN should have access; and (e) to decide whether to give or withhold consent to the use of any restrictive practice for SN proposed from time to time in compliance with Part 4A of the Quality of Care Principles 2014 made pursuant to the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) or any subsequent equivalent legislation. -- 4 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 5 7 The administration and the guardianship orders made in GAA 3404 of 2025 were to be reviewed before 21 August 2030. 8 PN's position was that the presumption of capacity under s 4 of the GA Act was not displaced on the evidence and no orders appointing a guardian or administrator for SN should be made. Alternatively, if we found that SN does lack capacity to make financial and personal decisions, PN proposed JF be appointed as SN's administrator and PN be appointed as his guardian. Principles governing the proceedings and matters not in dispute 9 As a review of a reviewable decision, this proceedings is by way of a hearing 'de novo': that is, afresh.1 The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision on review.2 We may consider the evidence that was before the Member as well as new evidence.3 Our primary concern is to make a decision that is in SN's best interests.4 We must, as far as possible, try to ascertain SN's views and wishes.5 10 We may only appoint a guardian in respect of a person who is over 18 years of age.6 There is no dispute in this case, and we find, that SN meets this criteria. 11 We must presume that SN is capable of making reasonable judgments about his personal and financial affairs unless we are satisfied on the evidence that he is not capable.7 12 We cannot make an administration order unless we are satisfied that SN is: (a) unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate; and (b) in need of an administrator of his estate.8 1 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), s 27(1). 2 SAT Act, s 27(2). 3 SAT Act, s 27(1). 4 Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act), s 4(2). 5 GA Act, s 4(7). 6 GA Act, s 43(1)(a). 7 GA Act, s 4(3). 8 GA Act, s 64(1)(a) and s 64(1)(b). -- 5 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 6 13 We cannot make a guardianship order unless we are satisfied that SN: (a) is incapable of looking after his own health and safety; (b) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or (c) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others; and (d) is in need of a guardian.9 14 We must not make an order appointing a guardian or an administrator if SN's needs could be met by other means less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action.10 As we have said, under the EPA and the EPG respectively, SN appointed MN and some combination of his children as his attorneys and guardians. The Member revoked the EPA and the EPG. PN does not seek review of those orders. Accordingly, if we find that SN is in need of an administrator or a guardian, an order appointing an administrator or guardian will be the only means to meet SN's needs. 15 In order to be eligible for appointment as an administrator or guardian, an individual must be over the age of 18 years and have consented to act in that role.11 JF has consented to be SN's administrator and PN has consented to be his guardian. They were the only volunteers for each role. We are satisfied, and find, that both JF and PN are over 18 years of age. 16 We may only appoint an administrator or a guardian who, in our opinion, will act in SN's best interests and is otherwise suitable to act as SN's administrator or guardian.12 In addition, we may only appoint a guardian who is not in a position where their interest's conflict, or may conflict, with SN's interests.13 17 In determining these questions, we must take into account, as far as possible, the proposed appointees' compatibility with SN, SN's wishes, 9 GA Act, s 43(1)(b)(i), s 43(1)(b)(ii) and s 43(1)(b)(iii) and s 43(1)(c). 10 GA Act, s 44(1) and s 68(1). 11 GA Act, s 44(1), s 68(1). 12 GA Act, s 68(1), s 68(1)(c) and s 68(1)(d) and s 44(1), s 44(1)(a) and s 44(1)(c), respectively. 13 GA Act, s 44(1)(b). -- 6 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 7 and whether the proposed appointees will be able to perform the functions proposed to be vested in them as administrators or guardians.14 18 In determining who to appoint as guardian, we must also take into account as far as possible the desirability of preserving existing relationships with the family of the person in respect of whom the application is made.15 19 We must not appoint a plenary guardian if appointing a limited guardian would be sufficient to meet SN's needs.16 20 Any order appointing a limited guardian or an administrator should be in the least restrictive terms that are possible in the circumstances.17 Summary of issues remaining to be determined 21 In light of the above, the issues that remain to be determined are as follows: (1) Are we satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that: (a) SN suffers from a mental disability; and (b) by reason of that mental disability, SN is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate; and (c) SN is in need of an administrator of his estate? (2) If the answer to each of issues (1)(a), (b) and (c) is 'yes', are we satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that JF: (a) will act in SN's best interests; and (b) is suitable to be appointed SN's administrator, taking into account: (i) his compatibility with SN and SN's guardian; (ii) SN's wishes; and 14 GA Act, s 68(3)(a) to s 68(3)(c) and s 44(2)(b) to s 44(2)(d), respectively. 15 GA Act, s 44(2)(a). 16 GA Act, s 4(5). 17 GA Act, s 4(6). -- 7 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 8 (iii) whether he will be able to perform the functions to be vested in him, being all the functions of plenary administrator other than the functions of commencing and defending litigation, disposing of interests in real property and granting mortgages or other securities over real property? (3) In relation to the application for a guardianship order, are we satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that SN is: (a) incapable of looking after his own health and safety; (b) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or (c) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health or safety or for the protection of others; and (d) in need of a guardian? (4) If the answer to each of issues (3)(a) to (d) is 'yes', are we satisfied on the balance of probabilities that PN: (a) will act in SN's best interests; (b) is not in a position where his interests' conflict, or may conflict, with SN's interests; and (c) is suitable to be appointed SN's limited guardian? SN's wishes 22 SN attended the hearing and told us in plain terms that he did not need anyone to assist him to manage his finances or to make personal decisions for him. He also told us that if we did decide he needed assistance to manage his finances that he would want us to appoint his former bank manager, JF, as his administrator and if we did decide he needed assistance to make personal decisions that he would want us to appoint his son, PN, as his guardian. Have the preconditions for the appointment of an administrator or guardian been met? 23 SN is 85 years of age. In February 2025, he had a brainstem stroke which resulted, in particular, in right hemiplegia and dysarthria. SN was -- 8 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 9 in hospital from the date of his stroke in February 2025 until 13 November 2025 when he returned to his home where he has since resided with the assistance of a live-in care team. Summary of the medical evidence Dr A 24 In April 2025, at the request of his hospital medical team, SN was assessed by Dr A, a consultant psychiatrist experienced with old age psychiatry. Dr A stated in his report dated 3 August 2025 that this assessment was requested 'mainly to clarify [SN's] decision-making capacity' as 'he was contemplating changing his will and making other major decisions'. 25 In his report, Dr A noted that he visited SN several times in April 2025 at the hospital, reviewed his medical records, spoke with ward staff and spoke to MM and PN. Dr A also joined a family meeting by video link where SN, MM, PN and MAN were present. 26 Dr A said that his review of SN's medical records showed that in October 2024 SN collapsed at home and was admitted to hospital in a confused state. He had stopped taking his regular medications including medication for chronic heart failure. His physical recovery at that time was quick but his cognitive recovery was reported to be 'slow and incomplete'. 27 Dr A said that SN's brain CT scan in October 2024 showed 'generalised atrophy (mainly parietotemporal) and moderate microvascular disease'. He said that SN's Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score then was 16 - 18/30, and his medical team diagnosed 'dementia: mixed vascular and Alzheimer type'.18 Dr D said that SN then returned home promising to accept help but once back at home cooperated 'poorly'. He then suffered a stroke in February 2025. 28 Dr A said in his report that neuroimaging after the stroke showed 'an acute infarction in the left side of the pons, and signs of an old haemorrhage (probably an old subdural haematoma) in the right frontal region. It also showed moderate small vessel angiopathy, generalised cerebral atrophy and bilateral hippocampal atrophy. A PET scan on 17 March 2025 showed medial temporal hypo-perfusion'. 18 It appears from this report that the MoCA was conducted in November 2024. -- 9 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 10 29 Dr A also noted that SN had refused to fully engage in a structured cognitive test with him, but the questions SN did answer 'showed that he was adequately oriented (8/10) but had impairment of recall (1/3)'. 30 Dr A said in his report that: Throughout our conversations, [SN] was talkative and cheerful, but distractible and emotionally disinhibited. His answers to direct questions were brief and coherent, but when he continued speaking without interruption, he was circumstantial and repetitive. His speech was mildly slowed, and he had word-finding difficulty. His history was vague, and he was unable to provide details such as names, places, dates and figures. … He sometimes changed the subject to disguise his uncertainty. He could talk about some recent political events in general terms, but he could not discuss abstract concepts such as religion or explain common proverbs. 31 In his report, Dr A gave the following opinions with respect to SN: (a) SN had experienced progressive functional and cognitive impairment over several years, probably exacerbated by his stroke; (b) Dr A agreed with the October 2024 diagnosis of 'dementia: mixed vascular and Alzheimer type'; (c) significant recovery is 'very unlikely and further slow deterioration is expected'; (d) due to this mixed dementia, SN had difficulty judging the consequences of his actions, including refusing medication, and resorted to avoidant, emotionally driven responses. He could not recall detail, or grasp complexity. Instead, when making decisions, SN resorted to making simple, emotionally driven, decisions. He had a lack of insight and understanding of his condition; (e) SN's personality 'remains vibrant, and he still feels himself to be independent but objectively, he is not'; (f) with respect to SN's capacity to make personal decisions: Aside from his physical disability he would need prompting and assistance with daily tasks, including personal care and medications. He has difficulty judging the consequences of actions such as refusing medications, and he resorts to avoidant, emotionally driven responses. In the hospital environment, [SN] is -- 10 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 11 mostly agreeable and accepting care but, due to a lack of insight and understanding, he is likely to refuse help and ignore risk if he is discharged again to an unstructured environment. (g) with respect to SN's testamentary and financial decision-making capacity: [SN] can grasp the basic facts of his situation and talk about them, but he cannot recall detail and cannot grasp complexity. He resorts to simple, emotionally driven decisions. He relies on those he trusts to help and advise him, but he is suggestible and entertains irrational suspicions, and he may be vulnerable to inappropriate influence. 32 Dr A gave oral evidence at the original hearing which was consistent with his report. 33 Dr A said that he thought that SN's mental ability, his memory, his ability to make judgments and monitor himself, and to appreciate and mitigate risk had been declining well before his stroke. 34 Dr A said that the request to assess SN came from Dr C. He said that he had spoken to Dr C about his opinion before he wrote his report, and Dr C appeared to accept what he was saying. Dr B 35 SN attended a general practitioner, Dr B, on 15 September 2025 to 'discuss document for a Support or Assessment program (SAP) application' to obtain a letter of opinion regarding SN's 'current communication and cognitive capabilities to support this application'. Dr B's note of this attendance stated that: (a) a 'previous cognitive assessment conducted by Dr F resulted in a low score of 15/30' but it 'is believed this score is not representative of his true cognitive ability' due to his non-English speaking background, limited formal education and the test not being adequately explained to him at the time. (b) he agreed to write a letter stating that standardised cognitive assessment results 'may not be a true representation of his cognitive capabilities due to the inherent biases of such tests'; and (c) he had offered SN a formal cognitive assessment, but this was initially 'met with resistance' but was accepted once it was explained that 'such an assessment could provide documentary -- 11 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 12 proof of his capacity to make his own decisions regarding finances and his estate'. 36 At the request of the Tribunal Dr B also provided a medical report dated 19 November 2025. Dr A noted he had seen SN three times in 12 months and that he had known him for 21 years. In that report Dr B answered 'not assessed' to the question whether SN has a mental disability. Dr C answered 'unsure' to the following questions: whether SN has the cognitive capacity to make reasonable decisions about simple financial matters, about complex financial matters and about legal matters. He answered 'yes' to the question whether SN has the capacity to make reasonable decisions about his medical treatment, accommodation and services. Dr B provided no reasons in support of his opinions. Dr C 37 Dr C, a gerontologist, provided the Tribunal with two medical reports on SN. The first, dated 28 November 2025, was given at the request of Dr B. The second, dated 4 December 2025, was given at the request of the Tribunal. Unfortunately, given the contents of the reports were contradictory, Dr C was not available to give oral evidence before us because he was travelling. 38 In his first report, Dr C noted SN presented 'following concerns raised about his decision-making capacity, particularly regarding property management'. Dr C observed that SN 'demonstrates good recall of his property portfolio and can provide coherent explanations about their usage and history'. Dr C reviewed SN's medical records and reported that 'when he was under my care he had been deemed to have capacity and a second opinion from a psychiatrist concurred with this in March 2025'. Dr C did not say who gave either of the two opinions he referred to. However, we note that the second opinion Dr C refers to appears to be the opinion given by Dr A. As is apparent from the summary above, Dr A did not, in fact, concur that SN had capacity, and so the basis of Dr C's report appears to be in error. 39 Dr C noted a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 22/29. 40 Dr C concluded that: Based on today's assessment, [SN] demonstrates capacity to make decisions about his personal care and property management. He shows good understanding of his circumstances, can express his preferences, -- 12 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 13 and demonstrates reasonable judgement about his needs. He sometimes tended to lose focus but was easily redirected. 41 In his second report Dr C noted he had seen SN two times in 12 months and that he had known him for 11 months. In that report Dr C answered 'yes' to the question whether SN has a mental disability. Dr C noted: Mild cognitive impairment with an MMSE of 22/29 (unable to use his hand properly as stroke affected right hand). His schooling was also limited and English is not his first language. I looked after him in hospital and between then and when I saw him again in November he appears to have improved in his cognitive capacity. 42 Dr C said 'yes' in answer to questions of whether SN had the cognitive capacity to make reasonable decisions in relation to medical treatment, accommodation and services, and to simple financial matters. Dr C said 'unsure' in answer to questions of whether he had cognitive capacity to make reasonable decisions about complex financial matters and legal matters. Dr D 43 Dr D, a consultant physician, provided a report dated 8 January 2026, at the request of Dr E, SN's general practitioner. Dr D noted in his report that he 'was being asked to assess [SN's] testamentary capacity'. 44 In his report, Dr D: (a) said that, in his opinion, the MRI 'did not necessarily support him having a dementia syndrome'; and (b) noted that in a MMSE undertaken for the purposes of his report SN had scored 11/30 and that his MoCA in October 2024 was apparently 13/30 but said that: no matter what cognitive tests [SN] has done and what the score is this does not on its own indicate that he has neurodegenerative dementia. My clinical impression … is that he does not have a neurodegenerative dementia. 45 Dr D concluded in his report that: -- 13 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 14 [SN] does have testamentary capacity including to decide on his finances, capacity to do legal affairs, capacity to do a will, capacity to decide about services and lifestyle matters, capacity to decide on healthcare matters, and capacity to vote. 46 Dr D also gave oral evidence at the hearing before us. The effect of his evidence, as we understood it, was that he had no independent recollection of assessing SN beyond what was written in his report, which was his record of what had occurred at that assessment. He said that he had seen SN for up to an hour, that being the allocated 'slot'. Dr D said that, before he saw SN he spoke to PN to gain information about SN's financial position. He could not recall what medical records he had been given about SN, other than his report refers to an MRI and he believed that he saw SN's hospital discharge summaries. Dr D said that he had not seen the CT scan that Dr A referred to in his report, although Dr D considered that the MRI would be superior to the CT scan in this case. It appeared that Dr D had also not seen the PET scan that Dr A referred to. 47 With respect to the MMSE of 11/30 (which appeared, in fact, to have been scored out of a total of 28, rather than 30), Dr D said that indicated some degree of cognitive incapacity. When asked why he had not said in his report that SN had a cognitive impairment, Dr D said, in effect, that he thought the reference to the cognitive test result spoke for itself. He said that his assessment was that SN did not likely have neurodegenerative dementia but said that not every cognitive impairment was due to dementia. 48 Ultimately, Dr D said that he did not look into SN's diagnosis in any detail, as he was just being asked to assess his testamentary capacity. He said his assessment of capacity was based on SN's understanding of his personal assets and 'some understanding of his business'. Dr D said 'to handle business, that's another level. I wasn't going into all that'. 49 In response to a question from the Tribunal as to whether, in giving his opinion about SN's testamentary capacity, he is drawing a distinction between how SN wants his financial assets disposed of, as opposed to actively managing them, Dr D said: Okay, this is a very valid question. This is a difficult area because, with his cognitive impairment, he may not be able to handle - "Okay, I'm going to sell this property all by myself, or do it all by myself, or direct a lawyer to do it for me under my direct instruction". I haven't actually provided an answer in this because I'm not actually capable of testing him directly that he could do it himself or direct the lawyer in explicit detail himself -- 14 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 15 to divest of, say, a property, or do some complex financial affairs. So having said that, given his cognitive impairment, he may have some difficulty with that. What I put in the letter was that he met my standards to say that he had capacity to give direction on what he wanted with his complex financial affairs. For example, if he said he wanted to sell this property or do something like that, or transfer it to someone somewhere, and he had assistance with it, he might be capable of doing that. That's based on his financial - what he gave to me. But I'm not actually saying that he necessarily could do it all by himself, or give very explicit instructions to any legal representative to handle it. That is not something I could closely test, and given his cognitive impairment, he may not be able to do that. Dr E 50 Another general practitioner, Dr E, provided the applicant's legal representative with two medical reports. The first, dated 10 March 2026 said, 'I confirm that [SN] does not suffer with any mental psychological illness'. The second, dated 17 March 2026 said: (i) [SN] is incapable of looking after his own physical health and safety. He is wheelchair bound due to right haemiplagia from cerebral stroke. He has 2 x full time carers to look after him 24/7. (ii) He can make reasonable judgements in respect of matters relating to his person. He has normal mental faculty. (iii) Mentally he is not in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others. [iv] He does not need a guardian to make decisions for him. [v] [SN] has physical disability, but he has full mental capacity to make decision for his welfare and for his estate. 51 Dr E gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. He said that he did not perform any formal assessment of SN's mental capacity, having referred him to Dr D for that purpose. He said that the opinion expressed in his report was based on Dr D's report, coupled with his own impressions of seeing SN during consultations. 52 Whilst Dr E had seen SN as a patient since 1997, it appeared from Dr B's report that SN had also consulted with Dr B during some of that period. Dr E also said he had no record of seeing SN from 24 May 2024 to 5 November 2025. -- 15 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 16 Summary of the cognitive assessments 53 We have set out the results of the standardised cognitive assessments that SN has completed in the following table: Date Type of assessment and notes Score 1 November 2024 Hospital MoCA WACHS Note says to add a point if the level of education was less than year 12/ Normal 26-30 12 + 1 /30 3/15 for delayed recall December 2024 Dr F Progress notes refer to 'previous cognitive assessment' of Dr B on 10 and 15 September 2025 by Dr F, a geriatrician, who was consulted in December 2024. 15/30 14 March 2025 Hospital MoCA WACHS Note says to add a point if level of education was less than year 12/ Normal 26 to 30 13/30 (12 + 1) 27 November 2025 Dr C MMSE WACHS Note says 0-17 marked cognitive impairment 13 to 23 moderate cognitive impairment 24 to 30 normal range Interpretation depends on previous level of education, language and culture 22/29 8 January 2024 Dr D's practice MMSE 11/28 54 We note that the reference in Dr A's report of a MoCA of 16 - 18/30 was apparently to a MoCA conducted in November 2024. It may be that Dr A was referring, in error, to the result of the MoCA referred to in the above table, dated 1 November 2024. If that is the case, as the result would then be overstated by Dr A, rather than understated, we do not consider this materially affects Dr A's opinion. Other evidence 55 The opinions of SN's family members on these issues were mixed. -- 16 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 17 56 We heard from SN's older brother FN, his sisters RN and AM, his oldest son PN and his daughter MM. 57 FN, RN and AM have known SN all their lives and are in regular contact with him. They are firmly of the view that SN does not have a mental disability, and he is not in need of either an administrator or guardian. 58 PN, while expressing the view that SN does not have a mental disability and is not in need of either an administrator or guardian, also told us that he shields SN from some of the problems with his businesses and tells him 'the solutions to our problems' and 'how we're going to go about it'. PN said he did this because SN is 'not a young person anymore' and that 'You've got to go a bit gentle on him. Might keep him around for a little bit longer, yes'. 59 MM agreed with Dr A's opinion and disagreed with the opinion of the other medical practitioners. MM said Dr A spent much more time with SN and understood him better than the other medical practitioners, including his current general practitioner. 60 The applicant's counsel in his closing submissions drew the Tribunal's attention to the report of SN's delegated guardian (OPA report) dated 11 March 2026 which said: The delegated guardian notes that no decisions requiring involvement or consultation with the Public Advocate have arisen since the represented person was discharged home. This raises the question of whether the ongoing appointment of a substitute decision‑maker remains necessary in this matter. Given these circumstances and noting that the supports currently in place are generally adequate and stable, the delegated guardian submits that the tribunal may wish to consider whether a less restrictive option is now appropriate. 61 However, when questioned about this passage, the delegated guardian said that what she meant by the expression 'less restrictive option' was that whilst she did recommend that a guardian be appointed for SN due to his limited insight into his support needs, she thought that a family member should be appointed. The Tribunal accepts the delegated guardian's evidence to be to that effect, although what is said in the report was clearly capable of being misunderstood as an opinion that SN did not require a guardian at all. -- 17 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 18 Consideration of the evidence as to capacity 62 As can be seen from evidence we have referred to, it is fair to say the medical evidence as to whether SN has a mental disability and if so, whether due to that mental disability he is not able to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate, and whether he is unable to make reasonable personal decisions, is mixed. 63 Overall, we prefer the evidence of Dr A for the following reasons. 64 First, Dr A is a psychiatrist with experience in old age psychiatry. Dr C also has expertise as a gerontologist. However, ultimately, he was unsure about SN's cognitive capacity to make decisions in relation to complex financial matters and legal matters. In addition, as we have said, the opinion in his first report appears to have been based an error in recollection about Dr A's opinion about SN's capacity. 65 Dr D has experience in assessing cognitive capacity as a consultant physician. However, ultimately his evidence was that the purpose of his assessment was to assess SN's capacity to make a will, and not to assess his capacity to manage his complex financial affairs or to assess his capacity to make personal decisions. 66 Both general practitioners, Dr B and Dr E did not undertake any specialist assessment of SN but rather relied on the expert assessments. To the extent that Dr E said that he also relied on his observation, that was in the context of consultations as a general practitioner about matters that did not concern cognition, where he had not seen SN for a considerable period between May 2024 and November 2025. As Dr A said, SN presents as a vibrant personality despite his cognitive impairment and is able to answer direct questions in a coherent way. 67 Second, Dr A saw SN on several occasions over two weeks while SN was an in-patient at hospital, which is both more often and for longer than the other medical practitioners. In particular, Dr D saw SN on only one occasion for up to an hour. 68 Third, Dr A had access to SN's hospital medical records, which appear to be more extensive than the records available to the other medical practitioners, including Dr D, as well as being given information by the hospital staff who cared for SN. It appears that Dr A was able to review the CT and PET scans, which Dr D was not. -- 18 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 19 69 Fourth, Dr A was given information from each of SN's children, while the other practitioners, if they were given information from his children at all, were only given information by PN and, possibly, his carer, KR. 70 Fifth, Dr A's opinion is consistent with the standardised tests conducted on SN which show low scores, even when an allowance is made for SN's education and linguistic background. On the evidence before us, the scores of most of the assessments were adjusted to allow for SN's level of education. We accept that difficulty in speaking English may reduce scores in cognitive testing. However, at the hearing, our observation was that SN spoke English reasonably well. We also note that Dr A said at the original hearing that SN spoke English fluently, and that Dr D conducted his assessment of SN in English with no apparent difficulty. In addition, other than the MMSE on 27 November 2025, the results of the cognitive tests follow a trend of declining scores. Whilst the result of the November 2025 MMSE is higher than earlier congnative tests, there was a significant decline between that MMSE and the MMSE undertaken in January 2026, which was in line with, and lower than, those earlier cognitive tests. 71 Sixth, Dr A's opinion is based not only on SN's ability to describe in general terms the extent of his estate, as was that of Dr D, but is based on his capacity to engage in the cognitive processes that underpin a person's an ability to make reasonable judgments about his estate and personal matters. 72 Finally, Dr A's opinion is consistent with PN's evidence that, in order to prevent his father from becoming 'worried and anxious', he does not tell him every problem with his businesses but rather he tells him the solutions to those problems and has him agree with them. Capacity to make financial decisions 73 A person's ability to make reasonable judgments about their estate must be assessed in relation to their actual estate and circumstances, and we must consider whether the person has the intellectual ability to engage in the particular mental processes which are required in order to make those judgments: FY [2019] WASAT 118 [52]. 74 SN's estate is both extensive and legally complex. It is not in dispute, and we find, that SN's estate consists of multiple entities including two trusts and three corporate entities, which hold cash, own real estate and engage in business including the potential of a large -- 19 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 20 property development. Further the estate appears to be mired in litigation. It recently paid a local government authority significant legal costs arising from long running litigation commenced both by the local government authority against one of the estate's corporate entities as well as litigation that corporate entity commenced against the local government authority. Further litigation involving this local government authority not only continues but has now expanded to include threats of litigation made by various business partners against one or more of the estate's entities. 75 On Dr A's evidence, with some support from the evidence of Dr D referred to in [48] and [49] above, we are satisfied, and we find, that SN has mixed vascular and Alzheimer's dementia, which is a mental disability within the meaning of s 3 of the GA Act. 76 We are also satisfied on this evidence that, by reason of his mental disability, SN's ability to make reasonable judgments about his extensive and complex estate is compromised by his reduced ability to recall detail and to grasp complexity as well as his reduced ability to judge the consequences of his actions, and his propensity to make simple, emotionally driven, decisions. 77 For these reasons, despite SN's own views, we are satisfied, and find, that SN is unable, by reason of this mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of his estate. Does SN need an administrator 78 We now turn to consider whether SN is in need of an administrator of his estate. 79 As we have found above, SN's estate is both extensive and complex. It is also apparently mired in litigation. We are therefore satisfied, and we find, that SN is in need of an administrator, as no informal arrangement will be able to meet the needs of SN's estate to instruct solicitors, to operate its businesses and to enter into arrangements over its development activities. We are also satisfied that due to the complexity of these arrangements only an administrator with a plenary appointment will meet SN's needs. Capacity to make personal decisions 80 We turn now to consider whether SN is: (a) incapable of looking after his own health and safety; -- 20 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 21 (b) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or (c) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health or safety or for the protection of others; and (d) in need of a guardian? 81 We are told by KR, one of SN's live-in carers, that SN is accepting of medical treatment and takes his prescribed medications when prompted. He also accepts the services provided to him by his carers. This is also the view of SN's delegated guardian who stated: [SN] continues to reside in his home, where he receives a combination of formal and informal supports. He remains cooperative with the services currently in place. According to his support team, [SN] doing very well and appears satisfied with both the live-in supports and the drop-in support staff. He has now accepted that around-the-clock support is necessary for his wellbeing and ongoing recovery. 82 The acceptance of medical treatment and services does not mean that SN is not incapable of making reasonable decisions in relation to those matters. 83 On the basis of Dr A's evidence, which we have accepted, SN is unable, by reason of his mental disability, to judge the consequences of his decisions, or to recall detail or grasp complexity. Nor does he have any insight into his limitations in this respect. On the evidence we have accepted, SN is incapable of seeking out and understanding medical advice, or of seeking out and understanding the services that he needs. 84 In addition, despite being now accepting of medical treatment and services, SN continues to tell his family that he will not voluntarily enter residential aged care. While SN's needs are met at his home this is not an issue. SN has considerable financial resources, and it is likely that his needs can be met at his home through payment for increased levels of home assistance for some considerable time. However, if ever SN's needs do exceed what can be provided to him at his home, a move to residential aged care will need to be considered. It is clear to us that SN will not consider such an option even if it is in his best interests to do so, and that this is as a result of matters referred to in [83] above. 85 Accordingly, we are satisfied, and find, that SN is incapable of looking after his own health and safety and unable to make reasonable -- 21 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 22 judgments in respect of matters relating to his person and is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his health and safety. 86 However, it appears that SN's need for medical treatment and services is being adequately managed on an informal basis while he is living with fulltime carers in his own home. The delegated guardian said that she had not been called on to make any decisions since SN had been discharged to his home. Accordingly, in our view, it cannot be said that SN needs a guardian to be formally appointed with those functions at the moment. 87 However, an aged care facility would not accept as a resident a person who is refusing to enter their facility unless the placement is authorised by a guardian with an accommodation function. 88 Accordingly, we are therefore satisfied, and we find, that SN is in need of a limited guardian with an accommodation function. Who should be appointed administrator of SN's estate 89 As we have said, JF, at the invitation of PN, has consented to be appointed the administrator of SN's estate. JF is the only person who has consented to appointment.19 90 We note that while SN does not accept that he is need of the appointment of an administrator he told us that if we were to appoint an administrator that he would prefer this to be JF. All of SN's children have told us in a document jointly submitted to the Tribunal at the hearing that they agree and wish for JF to be appointed the administrator of SN's estate.20 SN's siblings also support the appointment of JF, should the Tribunal decide SN is in need of an administrator. 91 In a statement lodged with the Tribunal and in his oral evidence, JF told us: (a) he has 30 years' experience in banking and was SN's bank manager between 1993 and 2000. He was also for some years the manager of a large business; (b) he is familiar with SN's estate; 19 In a document lodged with the Tribunal MAN did propose himself to be the administrator of SN's estate (MB, page 379). However, this proposal is not consistent with Exhibit 1. We therefore accept that MAN, by signing Exhibit 1, withdrew his proposal to be appointed SN's administrator. 20 Exhibit 1. -- 22 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 23 (c) he is aware of the obligations of an administrator and is willing to accept this appointment; (d) although it has been suggested to him by PN that he should be remunerated if appointed he is willing to commence without remuneration but will re-assess this decision once he has a better understanding of the time demands of such an appointment; (e) he is willing to provide information about SN's estate to the Public Trustee; and (f) he has no criminal convictions; he has never been a bankrupt and he has never been removed as an officer of a company. 92 On the basis of this evidence, which was not disputed, we are satisfied, and we find, that JF is a suitable person to be appointed SN's administrator and that he is able to perform the functions of an administrator of an estate as complex as SN's estate. As we have said, we are also satisfied that only an administrator with plenary appointment will meet SN's needs. 93 We will therefore appoint JF to be the plenary administrator of SN's estate. 94 Given that SN has powers as trustee of an investment trust, we are satisfied, and find, that it is appropriate for us to make an order pursuant to s 72(1) and Schedule 2, Part B(h) of the GA Act that JF as plenary administrator is authorised to exercise the powers that SN holds as trustee of that trust. 95 We accept the evidence given in the original hearing that SN has a history of giving generously to family and to his church. We will therefore include in the orders a gifting provision in the amount of $10,000 annually. Who should be appointed SN's guardian? 96 PN has proposed himself to be SN's guardian. As we have said, no other person has volunteered for this appointment. 97 We note that while SN does not accept that he is in need of the appointment of a guardian he told us that if we were to appoint a guardian that he would prefer this to be PN. All of SN's children have told us in a document jointly submitted to the Tribunal at the hearing that they agree, -- 23 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 24 subject to certain conditions, that they wish for PN to be appointed SN's guardian.21 98 PN told us at the hearing: (a) he lives near his father and visits his father regularly at his home; (b) he speaks frequently to his father about his businesses; (c) he will be able to make the hard decision of placing his father in residential aged care if it becomes necessary to do this; and (d) he is willing to share information about his father with his siblings. 99 The applicant's evidence was confirmed by SN's live-in carer KR. 100 We also note that at the hearing PN's legal representative told us the applicant will provide information via a WhatsApp group to MM and others and by regular telephone calls to MAN. 101 We are satisfied and we find PN is not in a position where his interests conflict or may conflict with SN's interests. We make this finding because we accept the evidence of PN, KR, MAN and MM that the applicant facilitated SN's discharge from hospital in November 2025 by modifying SN's home to meet his needs and that he engaged suitable live-in carers and other services to provide SN with the support he needs to live in his home. We accept PN's evidence that he is willing, if required, to make decisions about SN's accommodation needs which are in his best interests but may be contrary to SN's (strongly expressed) wishes. 102 There is a history of disharmony between PN on the one hand and others of SN's children. We have some concern that, despite the current agreement of SN's children as to PN's appointment, and his current commitment to provide them with information about SN, further disharmony may arise in the future, to the detriment of SN's family relations. However, given that, for the time being, all members of the family appear to be in agreement that SN's accommodation needs are being met, and that PN is suitable to act as SN's guardian, and the limited nature of the functions to be conferred, we consider that he is suitable for 21 Exhibit 1. -- 24 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 25 appointment at this time. Obviously, if things change in the future, an application to vary the orders may be made. 103 We are therefore satisfied, and we find, the applicant is suitable to be appointed SN's limited guardian with an accommodation function and that he is able to perform that function. We will therefore appoint the applicant to be SN's limited guardian with an accommodation function. Review period 104 Administration and guardianship orders can be in place for a period of up to 5 years before mandatory review. Given SN's age, the nature of his mental disability and the evidence of Dr A that 'significant recovery is very unlikely and further slow deterioration is expected', we are satisfied and find that each order should be in place for a period of 5 years. Orders The Tribunal makes the following declarations and orders: Administration 1. Orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the orders made on 21 August 2025 are revoked. 2. The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [SN], 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. 3. [JF] of [address redacted], 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. Pursuant to section 72(1) and Schedule 2, Part B(h) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), [JF] as plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person is authorised to exercise the powers the represented person holds as the trustee of the [name redacted] Investment Trust. -- 25 of 26 -- [2026] WASAT 70 Page 26 5. The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $10,000 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person. 6. The administration orders in orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 are to be reviewed by 17 June 2031. Guardianship 7. Orders 8, 9 and 10 of the orders made on 21 August 2025 are revoked. 8. The Tribunal declares that the represented person is: (a) incapable of looking after his own health and safety; (b) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; (c) in need of oversight, care and control in the interests of his own health and safety; and (d) in need of a guardian. 9. [PN] of [address redacted], Western Australia, is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions: (a) to decide where the represented person is to live, either permanently or temporarily. 10. The guardianship orders in orders 8 and 9 are to be reviewed by 17 June 2031. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. WH Associate to the Deputy President Judge Vernon 17 JUNE 2026 -- 26 of 26 --