K [2026] WASAT 63

[2026] WASAT 63 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : K [2026] WASAT 63 MEMBER : JUDGE H JACKSON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 28 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : GAA 2066 of 2026 K Represented Person C Applicant Catchwords: Guardianship and administration - Interlocutory orders sought - Limited relevance - Pursuit of matters previously addressed - Abuse of process - Turns on own facts Legislation: Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 17A, s 84, s 85, s 86 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 11, s 60(2) Result: Access granted to transcript Application otherwise refused -- 1 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 2 Category: B Representation: Counsel: Represented Person : N/A Applicant : N/A Solicitors: Represented Person : N/A Applicant : N/A Case(s) referred to in decision(s): BZ [2020] WASAT 159 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 Forrest and Forrest Pty Ltd and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs [No 2] [2025] WASAT 101 Hendry v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2025] FCA 1262 K [2026] WASAT 16 K [2026] WASAT 46 K [No 2] [2026] WASAT 23 Neil and Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2] [2011] WASAT 43 (S) -- 2 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Brief Background 1 This proceeding (GAA 2066/2026) concerns K, a 42 year old intellectually disabled and profoundly deaf woman. 2 In this proceeding, C, who is one of K's brothers, seeks review under s 17A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) of orders made on 18 March 2026 by Member Bunney in GAA 6943/2025 (Orders under Review). 3 Briefly stated, in the Orders under Review, Member Bunney appointed the Public Trustee as the plenary administrator of K's estate and the Public Advocate as K's limited guardian. 4 Member Bunney's reasons explaining the basis for the Orders under Review were published as K [No 2] [2026] WASAT 23 (K [No 2]). 5 In K [No 2], Member Bunney notes that that proceeding was concerned with the review, under s 84 of the GA Act, of orders made on 19 March 2025 in GAA 6118/2024. 6 That is, in each of this and proceedings GAA 6943/2025 and GAA 6118/2024, the Tribunal is and was concerned with who should be appointed to make decisions on behalf of K in circumstances where there is no debate that, first, she lacks capacity to make reasonable decisions on her own behalf and, secondly, that there is a need for such orders.1 Indeed, the question as to who should be appointed to those roles is one which the Tribunal has addressed since 2015, when orders were first made for K. 7 However, in the application which commenced this proceeding, C does not indicate whether or not he seeks appointment to either of the two roles. Rather, both in the orders he seeks and the reasons he relies upon, he is (merely) critical of Member Bunney's appointment of the Public Advocate and Public Trustee (together, the Public Bodies) and seeks the setting aside of those orders and, in the alternative, the remittal of the matter for further hearing. In the hearing before Member 1 Of course, the Tribunal must be satisfied each time that the presumption of capacity is displaced and there is a need for formal orders. For present purposes only, I have assumed that that will occur. -- 3 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 4 Bunney, C nominated himself as both her administrator and guardian. If he seeks to do that again, it is not apparent on the application form. 8 So, for example, under the heading 'Reasons', by which he seeks to explain the reasons for bringing the application, he says that Member Bunney: … proceeded on the footing of the earlier WASAT 16 dismissal, treated unresolved safeguarding issues as already disposed of, and failed to properly examine whether the current Public Advocate and Public Trustee arrangements remained appropriate, safe and lawful. [She] then made five-year continuation orders until 18 March 2031. The decision is affected by material mischaracterisation of the issues raised, distortion of the record, and failure to determine the live safeguarding issues according to their statutory significance. 9 The reference to 'WASAT 16' is a reference to another application brought by C in GAA 6943/2025 (Section 85 Application). That was an application brought by C under s 85 of the GA Act, which requires the Tribunal to review orders previously made if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the guardian or administrator is guilty of such neglect, misconduct or default that they are rendered unfit to continue. 10 In the Section 85 Application, C made various allegations against the Public Bodies that, he submitted, triggered the operation of s 85 of the GA Act. 11 However, as explained in K [2026] WASAT 16 (K), Member Bunney dismissed the Section 85 Application, concluding that it was an abuse of process. 12 C sought review of Member Bunney's orders dismissing the Section 85 Application (GAA 1653/2026), but Senior Member Evans- Bonner determined that there was no right of review of that decision - K [2026] WASAT 46. 13 I note that C has not sought to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. 14 Rather, as I have previously noted, he has sought to pursue his concerns about the Public Bodies in the current proceeding which, as I have noted above, is concerned only with who should be appointed to be K's guardian and administrator. 15 It is not uncommon for parties to proceedings under the GA Act, in which appointment as a represented person's guardian and/ or -- 4 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 5 administrator is an issue, to be critical of the suitability of another person who has nominated for appointment. After all, suitability is a key criterion for appointment.2 16 However, in the case of each of guardianship and administration, the GA Act provides that the Public Advocate is the appointee of last resort.3 That is, in each case the GA Act provides that, save for an irrelevant exception in the case of guardians, the Tribunal 'shall not appoint the Public Advocate' unless there is no one else 'who is suitable and willing to act'. 17 The Public Advocate is the administrator of last resort because there are some circumstances where the Public Trustee is unable to be appointed, for example, due to a conflict of interest.4 Save for such circumstances, the Public Trustee will be appointed if no one else consents to the appointment and is suitable. 18 Accordingly, the question in the present proceedings is, if C or someone else nominates and is otherwise eligible, whether they are suitable for appointment. If we find that no one else is suitable (assuming eligibility), we will appoint each of the Public Bodies to the respective roles. 19 In those circumstances, C's focus on the suitability of the Public Bodies and, as we will see, whether they have performed various functions, is of little to no relevance in the current proceeding, and also appears to represent an attempt by him to continue to pursue matters which have already been determined by the Tribunal. 20 In these reasons, it is not my present task to resolve the substantive merits of the proceedings as a whole. Rather, these reasons are limited to addressing an application C made on 11 May 2026 for various procedural orders to be made ahead of the substantive hearing which is currently listed for 26 and 29 June 2026 (Application). 21 However, consistent with my observations of his approach to this proceeding as a whole, many of the procedural orders now sought by C are concerned with matters going to the suitability of the Public Bodies and are therefore of little relevance to the matters that require resolution in the present proceedings which, as I have said, are 2 GA Act, ss 44(1)(c) and 68(1)(d). 3 GA Act, ss 44(5) and 68(5). 4 See, for example, BZ [2020] WASAT 159, [64]. -- 5 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 6 primarily concerned with who should be appointed as K's guardian and the administrator of her estate. 22 Another theme of the procedural orders sought by C are concerned with facilitating his inquiry into the basis on which certain allegations were made about him, and which have been raised in previous proceedings. 23 On their face, the truth or otherwise of such allegations might be said to go to his suitability. 24 However, it is far from clear whether they will be raised or relied upon in this proceeding. As will be seen, the allegations appear to have been raised by someone who no longer appears to have a role with K. Further, the reasons given by Member Bunney in K [No 2] make no mention of the allegations. That is, she determined the matter without reference to them. 25 In any event, if any party attends the substantive hearing in this proceeding and makes similar or other serious allegations against C (or, indeed, anyone else that nominates for appointment) and it is necessary to address the merits of the allegation, the Tribunal is well equipped to do so, including by reference to the seriousness of the allegation and the presence or absence of other, corroborating evidence. Put bluntly, bald allegations of serious wrongdoing unsupported by other evidence are likely to be given little weight, particularly if they are made by someone who did not directly witness the events in question. 26 Having said that, it is often unnecessary for the Tribunal to make findings in relation to disputed questions of fact that concern past events. 27 That is, while it is unfortunately the case that proceedings under the GA Act often involve disputed factual accounts of past events, including allegations of abuse and other matters, it is often unnecessary (and indeed, not possible) for the Tribunal to determine where the truth lies in such cases. 28 But, in any event, there are limits on the manner in which a party may run their case in the Tribunal. 29 That is, while there is an obligation on the Tribunal to afford parties with procedural fairness, that does not mean that parties are to -- 6 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 7 be given carte blanche to run their cases as they see fit. I recently made similar comments in Forrest,5 a case in which a party sought orders which required the production of documents by another party. As will be seen, in some of the proposed orders, C seeks the production of documents, as part of his attempt to pursue the issue of the allegations against him, but the principle applies more generally in any event. 30 In what follows, I will deal with each of C's requests for procedural orders in turn. Constitution of Full Tribunal 31 C asks that the Full Tribunal for the present proceeding be constituted by members who have had 'no prior substantive involvement in the proceedings' concerning K 'or in the decisions, directions, reasons or procedural pathways now under review'.6 32 The request is made not on the basis of an allegation of actual bias but 'to preserve the appearance and reality of independent review'.7 33 The constitution of the Tribunal is a matter for the President under s 11 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). 34 I am advised that Her Honour has constituted the Tribunal in a manner that is consistent with C's request, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to say any more on this topic. 35 However, it is worth noting that the well-established principles concerning recusal for apprehended bias8 are such that the simple fact that a member has previously determined a matter concerning a represented person, or made findings about a party to the proceedings does not, of itself, provide a basis for their recusal on the basis of apprehended bias. 36 It is, in fact, common for members with some degree of familiarity with a represented person and their circumstances to sit on reviews under s 84 (periodic review) or s 86 (review on application) of the 5 Forrest and Forrest Pty Ltd and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs [No 2] [2025] WASAT 101. 6 Application for Procedural Directions and Minute of Proposed Orders, filed 11 May 2026 (Application), para 17. 7 Application, para 18. 8 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337. See, also, Hendry v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2025] FCA 1262 for a recent and thorough examination of the issues. -- 7 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 8 GA Act where the orders under review were made by them. There are good reasons of efficiency and consistency for that practice to continue. 37 Equally, the fact that a single member has made a previous decision in relation to a particular represented person should not preclude them from later sitting as a member of a panel in a s 17A proceeding provided, of course, that the decision under review is not their own. 38 Of course, there may be circumstances where adverse findings have previously been made by a member against a person such that that member should be recused from hearing future matters, but those matters must be determined on a case-by-case basis9 and that does not appear to be the basis on which C makes his application here. Directions hearing 39 C also seeks a directions hearing in order to allow his requests for these various orders to be considered.10 40 I am satisfied that there is no need for a directions hearing. Rather, it is appropriate for them to be addressed 'on the papers' pursuant to s 60(2) of the SAT Act. That is, indeed, how I have proceeded. 41 C's Application amounts to 15 pages of text. That is more than enough opportunity for him to explain why the orders he seeks should be made. In a directions hearing he is unlikely to be able to add anything not already raised. 42 Further, having considered his requests, I am satisfied it is not necessary for me to hear the views of other parties. 43 The objectives of speed and informality in s 9 of the SAT Act are of particular relevance here. A directions hearing would require the giving of notice to various parties, including K, and the making of various arrangements for her attendance. Given her circumstances, specialist interpreters would also need to be engaged. That would not necessarily be able to be achieved at short notice. 9 See, for example, Neil and Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2] [2011] WASAT 43 (S), [12]. 10 Application, paras 25 and 26. -- 8 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 9 44 In short, a directions hearing would provide little benefit but would entail the expenditure of scarce and valuable resources, including time and money, and would be disruptive to K and others. 45 For these reasons, I refuse the request for a directions hearing. Source material and reliance on contested allegations 46 C seeks orders that would require any party making an allegation adverse to C to identify the documentary or other source upon which the allegation is based and, if the document or record is said not to exist, to describe the searches or enquiries undertaken for it.11 47 For the following reasons I will not make the orders sought. 48 First, neither the allegations made, nor the question whether there is a proper basis for them, is central to the issue before the Tribunal in this proceeding, which is the identity of the person best suited to be appointed as K's guardian and administrator. 49 While serious allegations made against C might be said to challenge his suitability for appointment to the roles of his sister's guardian and as the administrator of her estate, as I have said, it is not clear whether he seeks such appointment in this proceeding. 50 Secondly, to the extent that C does seek such appointment, it is not clear whether anyone attending at the hearing in this proceeding will pursue the allegations previously made, or make fresh ones. 51 As I noted above, Member Bunney's reasons in K [No 2] were made without reference to the allegations. 52 That is, the orders sought seek to address a problem which does not appear likely to arise. 53 Thirdly, the Tribunal is well equipped to address such allegations if they are pursued at the substantive hearing, without the need for such orders. 54 In short, it can be confidently said that little weight will be given to bald assertions of serious misconduct that have little or no corroborating evidence to support them. 11 Application, paras 27 and 28. -- 9 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 10 Witness attendance and source evidence 55 C asks for orders compelling certain witnesses to attend.12 I will not make the orders sought. OPA Officers 56 Two of the people sought are officers of the Office of Public Advocate (OPA) - the current delegated guardian and another, Mr D. 57 It is common practice for the OPA delegated guardian to attend hearings concerning a represented person for whom they are guardian. Further, orders were made on 6 May 2026 requesting the Public Advocate to attend the hearing. It is therefore not necessary for me to make the order sought. 58 C wants Mr D to attend to give evidence about what was done in compliance with Order 3 made on 23 August 2024. 59 That order was made in GAA 3695/2024 and appointed the Public Advocate to be limited administrator of K's estate with powers to investigate a possible claim by K against the Public Trustee. C wants Mr D to be required to attend, in effect, to confirm that OPA complied with that Order in the event that a 'compliance certificate' is not provided, as to which see [96] below. 60 The order sought as to Mr D has no relevance to the present hearing. 61 I am also satisfied that C's request is an attempt to pursue the allegations raised by him against the Public Bodies in the Section 85 Application.13 As I have noted above, that proceeding was dismissed as an abuse of process. For him to attempt to pursue that issue in this proceeding is also, in my view, an abuse of process. N 62 C also seeks orders requiring the attendance of N, the brother of both C and K. 63 N appears to have attended all other recent hearings concerning K. Member Bunney's reasons in K [No 2] indicate a 'strong bond' between 12 Application, paras 29 - 33. 13 See, grounds 1 to 5 in K [2026] WASAT 16, [115]. -- 10 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 11 K and N.14 I therefore expect that he will attend such that there is no need for orders compelling him to do so. EC 64 C also seeks the attendance of EC, who I understand previously held the role of carer for K. 65 C's Application states that EC was 'a central factor in'15 certain matters that include allegations made against C, although he says that she has previously not attended hearings. He asks that she be required to attend if other parties do not expressly 'disavow' reliance on any of those allegations.16 66 Given that EC is no longer K's carer, she appears to have no interest in this proceeding. Consistent with that view, she did not appear at the hearing before Member Bunney, no mention is made of her in K [No 2] and the orders made on 6 May 2026 to program this proceeding to a hearing do not list her as someone to whom notice must be given. 67 This aspect of C's Application, then, appears to be purely for his own purposes - to question her on the allegations if other parties do not expressly disavow them. 68 As I have already said, the allegations formed no part of the matters relied upon by Member Bunney in the decision under review. If someone does attend the hearing and relies upon those allegations, the Tribunal will deal with them accordingly. The Public Trustee Officer with Conduct of the Investigation 69 C wants the Tribunal to compel the officer with the conduct of the investigation into possible losses suffered by K's estate to give a report of that investigation as well as how certain matters have been managed. 70 Again, this is an attempt to relitigate matters addressed in the Section 85 Application.17 14 K [No 2], [53]. 15 Application, para 29(c). 16 Application, paras 31 - 32. 17 K [2026] WASAT 16, [115] - [117]. -- 11 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 12 71 Order 8 of the orders made on 6 May 2026 provides for the Public Trustee to file a report in this proceeding 'concerning the current administration order and information relevant to the review'. 72 To the extent that C seeks information beyond those matters, they are irrelevant to the current proceedings and, moreover, they are private to K and her estate. Unless he is appointed administrator, or is otherwise determined to be suitable to be provided information, he has no right to the information. 73 It is common for the author of the Public Trustee's report to make themself available for questions, should the Tribunal require it. Unless and until I have read the report, I cannot say whether it is likely that the Tribunal will require the author to appear at the hearing in late June. 74 If, having read the report, C has questions to ask about the report, he should seek leave to do so at the hearing. To be clear, leave will not be given to ask questions that go beyond the scope of the present proceedings. JB 75 C also asks that JB be required to attend. JB appears to be associated with the organisation that provides K's accommodation (Accommodation Provider). C's Application says that JB should be required to attend if the Accommodation Provider (or OPA) does not provide a statement concerning the organisation's 'house rules, visitor restrictions and access arrangements, or if any party proposes to rely on statements attributed specifically to' her.18 76 I do not understand the relevance of the organisation's 'house rules, visitor restrictions and access arrangements' to the issues for determination in this proceeding. Such matters are for the Accommodation Provider to manage and, to some extent, for the delegated guardian to satisfy herself as appropriate and suitable, given she has the function of making decisions about K's accommodation. They appear to have little or no relevance to the task before the Tribunal in the present proceeding. 77 C's Application also refers to 'statements attributed specifically to' JB. Such statements, if they are critical of C and are relied upon by others at the hearing, will be given weight depending on all of the facts 18 Application, para 29(f). -- 12 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 13 and circumstances, including whether they are supported by other corroborating evidence. Public Advocate material: services and supports compliance 78 C seeks orders requiring the Public Advocate to produce or identify, or otherwise to file, the document which the Tribunal previously required to be filed by Order 2(c) made in the Orders under Review on 19 December 2025. C expressly states that he seeks the direction 'as a compliance direction, not as a fresh discovery request'.19 79 As I understand that explanation, C does not seek the document for any reason other than to check or confirm whether the Order has been complied with. 80 That is not a proper reason. In any event, the order in question forms part of the Orders under Review and so much of the information the subject of the order should be included in the delegated guardians report to be provided in the ordinary course. Public Advocate's material: risk allegations, wishes and communication 81 There are three separate requests made under this heading. 82 First, C seeks directions to the effect that the Public Advocate's report must contain or clarify certain matters. In particular, C asks that the report be required to confirm whether the Public Advocate maintains allegations or concerns about him and, if so, identifies the evidentiary basis for that allegation or concern.20 83 I will not make the order because it is unnecessary. 84 Order 9 of the orders made on 6 May 2026 in this proceeding requires the Public Advocate to file a report. It is common practice for the delegated guardian to attend a hearing concerning the represented person for whom they are guardian. Should the report make allegations against C, he will be able to ask questions of the delegated guardian, (subject to the direction of the panel to ensure that they are relevant, respectful and courteous). 85 By the second request, C asks for orders which would require the Public Advocate to clarify whether the 'service provider list' filed in 19 Application, para 37. 20 Application, para 38. -- 13 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 14 accordance with Order 2(c) of 19 December 2025 includes all practitioners who saw K after 30 December 2024.21 86 I will not make the order sought. C appears to want information that might identify individuals who may have had contact with K immediately following a period in which K was in his care. Allegations were made that he strongly disputes and about which he appears eager to investigate. 87 It is not appropriate to seek to use these proceedings for that purpose. 88 The third request is one that seeks a record from the Public Advocate of attempts to ascertain K's wishes and views in relation to certain matters.22 89 I will not make the order sought because it, again, appears to be an attempt to pursue matters previously pursued in the Section 85 Application23 and it therefore amounts to an abuse of process. Delegated guardian update dated 11 February 2026 90 C asks for orders requiring the Public Advocate to file with the Tribunal and serve on him a report from the delegated guardian dated 11 February 2026, which is referred to in K [No. 2].24 He also wants a range of information about that document. 91 As a 'reason' supporting that request, C asserts that the document in question was not in the hearing book provided to him, that it was relied upon by Member Bunney and that the Full Tribunal 'cannot fairly proceed on material relied upon in the decision under review unless [he] has access to it, knows when it entered the record, knows whether it was served, and has a fair opportunity to answer it'. 92 I do not agree with several of those assertions, but it is not necessary address them in detail. That is for two reasons. 93 First, I have viewed the electronic version of the hearing book provided to C ahead of the hearing before Member Bunney and I am satisfied that the document in question was included in it (at page 593, 21 Application, para 39. 22 Application, paras 40 - 42. 23 K [2026] WASAT 16, at [161] - [172]. 24 Application, para 43. -- 14 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 15 where the page numbers are in red and located in the top corner of the page). 94 Secondly, as a document that was before Member Bunney, it will be included in the hearing book prepared for the hearing before the full Tribunal. Order 6 of the Orders made on 6 May 2026 provides: The Tribunal must prepare a hearing book, comprising documents and other material in its possession or under its control which are relevant to the Full Tribunal's review of the single member's decision, including documents filed in accordance with the preceding orders, which may be collected by any party from the Tribunal by prior arrangement on or after 23 June 2026. 95 Accordingly, C will have an opportunity to consider the document and, if necessary, may make submissions to the Tribunal about it at the hearing. Legal-advice safeguard - Orders 3 and 5 of 23 August 2024 96 C seeks orders requiring the Public Bodies to file a 'certificate of compliance' addressing matters the subject of Orders 3 and 5 made on 23 August 2024 in GAA 3695/2024.25 If such a certificate is not filed, or C considers it inadequate for the purpose, C asks that Mr D is to be called - see above at paragraphs [58] - [59]. 97 By the orders made on 23 August 2024, each of the Public Bodies were given powers of investigation to determine whether K's estate had suffered losses due to the actions or inactions of others. The scope of the powers was different but it is not necessary to describe them. 98 C wants both the Public Bodies to certify whether legal advice was obtained by the Public Advocate,26 the nature of the instructions, to some extent the nature of the advice and other, related, matters. 99 I will not make the orders sought for several reasons, including that, as I have already said, it is an abuse of process to seek orders in this proceeding which concern the question of compliance with orders made in another proceeding. The investigation is also of no relevance to the central issue in this proceeding of who should be appointed K's guardian or administrator, in circumstances where the Public Bodies play the role of appointee of last resort. 25 Application, paras 45 - 47. 26 The Application is not clear as to whether such certificate is sought from each Public Body in relation to their own 'compliance', the 'compliance' of the other Public Body, or the 'compliance' of both Public Bodies. -- 15 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 16 Public Trustee investigation and [N] information sharing 100 C seeks an order that would require the Public Trustee to file a report identifying whether its investigation required by Order 2.3 made on 19 March 2025 in GAA 6118/2024 is complete and, if not, what work remains outstanding. He also asks that the report should include various other matters going to what steps have been taken as part of that investigation and other, ancillary matters, including what information has been shared with K's brother, N.27 101 Ground 1 of the matters raised in the Section 85 Application was that the Public Trustee 'is in default' for failing to complete the investigation.28 102 The present request appears to be an abuse of process in that it seeks to pursue matters the subject of that previous application. 103 But in any event, and as I have already found, the investigation concerns K's estate, about which C lacks any interest and to which he therefore has no right to access. 104 I will not, therefore, make the orders sought. 105 As I have previously held, to the extent that the Public Trustee's investigation is relevant to the present proceedings, it should be included in the report to be prepared in accordance with Order 8 of the Orders made on 6 May 2026. 106 C also wants N to file a report disclosing certain matters, specifically whether N received benefits associated with a particular superannuation account. 107 The question of who received the benefits of that account has been the subject of previous orders empowering investigations to be undertaken. The Public Trustee is subject to current orders requiring it to investigate whether K has suffered loss or damage due to any person's or organisation's action or inaction. 108 The orders therefore seek to second guess or, perhaps, pre-empt, that investigation. On that basis alone, they should be refused. 27 Application, paras 48 - 50. 28 K [2026] WASAT 16, [115] - [117]. See, also, Ground 2, [118] - [121]. -- 16 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 17 Bruising photographs, source material and [Dr T] letter 109 There are two requests under this heading. Source Material 110 As has already been indicated in the foregoing, allegations that K had suffered harm in or around December 2024 to January 2025 have previously been made. C refers to those matters, says that there were medical and police reports produced under subpoena in that regard and seeks orders for the production of the 'underlying' documents, such as photographs, image files, screenshots, text messages, emails and so on.29 111 I will not make those orders for reasons that should be clear from those previously given to similar requests. Briefly, it is unclear whether anyone will rely on them; Member Bunney made the Orders under Review without reference to them in her reasons in K [No 2]. But if someone else pursues the allegations in the substantive hearing in this proceeding, the Full Tribunal can and will address the issue at that time. Letter of [Dr T] 112 C requests orders by which the Public Advocate is required to identify whether a 'letter or report' from Dr T dated about 5 - 6 March 2025 'was filed with, provided to, or otherwise before the Full Tribunal at or before the 19 March 2025 hearing' in GAA 6118/2025.30 113 If that occurred, C wants the Public Advocate to explain why it was not provided to him before the hearing. 114 I will not make the orders sought. 115 Whether the document was, or was not, before the Tribunal and, if it was, whether C had a copy of it and, if not why not, are all matters that are irrelevant to the central task before the full Tribunal in this proceeding which, as I have repeated several times now, is concerned with who should be appointed as K's guardian and administrator. 29 Application, paras 52 - 56. 30 Application, para 57. -- 17 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 18 Post-removal custody chain, approval pathway and omitted warning 116 C asks for orders requiring the Public Advocate to identify 'by reference to source material already held or relied upon' various matters associated with K's whereabouts on or about 30 December 2024 as well as the role of various people in certain decisions made about her whereabouts on or about that date and other ancillary matters.31 117 The basis for the request is that these matters are 'relevant to the source and timing' of harm alleged to have been suffered by K at about that time. 118 For reasons already given, I will not make the orders sought. Accommodation Provider access rules and accommodation configuration 119 C seeks orders which would require K's Accommodation Provider to provide details of the 'official written house rule, visitor policy, risk assessment, service agreement …', whether they have been applied equally to all or whether those rules have been applied differently to him and/ or N, the current arrangements of K's accommodation and whether there have been any recent changes.32 120 I will not make the orders sought. 121 It is a matter for the Accommodation Provider to run its operations as it sees fit. To some extent, that includes making decisions to exclude a person from their premises on certain grounds, such as safety. 122 In that regard I note that the current orders (i.e. those under review in the present proceeding) include a contact function. That is, the delegated guardian has the function of determining whether or not K should or should not have contact with certain people. 123 The delegated guardian also has the function of ensuring that the accommodation provided for K remains suitable in her best interests. 124 Such decisions are for the guardian, not the Tribunal; the role of the Tribunal in these proceedings is limited to appointing a guardian. 125 The matters for which C seeks these orders are therefore not matters relevant to the present Tribunal's functions under the present proceedings. 31 Application, paras 58 - 62. 32 Application, para 64. -- 18 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 19 Scope and use of K [2026] WASAT 16 126 In K [No 2] Bunney relied33 (at [67]) upon her findings in the previous decision of K to find C's allegations against the delegated guardian to be baseless. 127 Unsurprisingly, C disagrees with that decision. 128 He seeks orders which would require parties to identify whether or not they intend to rely upon matters found in that previous decision and, if so, the particulars of that reliance.34 129 I will not make the order sought. 130 Whether or not other parties rely upon the findings in K is a matter for them. They are entitled to make submissions as to why those prior findings are relevant. C is equally entitled to make submissions about their relevance. 131 However, as should be obvious from my previous findings, I will not allow the present proceedings to be used as a forum within which C pursues matters that were dismissed in that earlier proceeding. Transcript, filing timetable and liberty to apply 132 C seeks an order by which he is to be provided with a copy of the full transcript of the hearing held on 23 August 2024. 133 That was a hearing presided over by Member Loh in matter GAA 3695/2024. Based on a cursory review, it appears to have been primarily concerned with the identity of the administrator of K's estate in light of concerns of mismanagement by the administrator at the time. 134 At present I am unable to see the relevance to the present hearing, but given that C appeared at that hearing, I see no reason why he should not be provided with it upon payment of the usual fee. Orders 135 For the preceding reasons, I will make orders such that, a copy of the transcript of the full hearing held before Member Loh on 23 August 2024 in GAA 3695 of 2024 must be provided to C upon payment which will be advised by the Transcript Officer in due course. 33 K [No 2], [67]. 34 Application, paras 65 - 66. -- 19 of 20 -- [2026] WASAT 63 Page 20 136 I will otherwise dismiss C's Application filed on 11 May 2026 seeking interlocutory orders. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. DM Associate 28 MAY 2026 -- 20 of 20 --