MC [2026] WASAT 45

[2026] WASAT 45 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : MC [2026] WASAT 45 MEMBER : MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER HEARD : 31 MARCH 2026 DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2026 PUBLISHED : 1 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : GAA 6032 of 2025 MC Represented Person B Applicant Catchwords: Whether leave should be granted to review guardianship and administration orders - Whether a change in circumstances exists - Whether there is any other reason the orders are no longer in the represented person's interests Legislation: Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4(2), s 4(7), s 17A, s 86, s 87, s 87(5) -- 1 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 2 Result: Leave refused Category: B Representation: Counsel: Represented Person : N/A Applicant : In Person Solicitors: Represented Person : N/A Applicant : N/A Case(s) referred to in decision(s): K [2025] WASAT 67 MC [2024] WASAT 119 RK [2022] WASAT 112 -- 2 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: (These reasons for decision were delivered orally on 30 April 2026 and have been edited only to anonymise parties, add headings, correct grammatical errors and some infelicity of expression, without variation to the substance thereof.) Summary 1 This decision is about whether to grant or refuse leave to review the guardianship and administration orders made for MC by the Full Tribunal on 26 March 2025 (2025 Orders). 2 MC is an 81-year-old woman with advanced dementia who has lived in residential aged care since November 2024. MC previously lived with her daughter B, who was her carer. 3 MC first came to the attention of the Tribunal in September 2024 while she was an inpatient at Hospital A. Hospital A applied to the Tribunal seeking guardianship and administration orders due to concerns about B's ability to make decisions in MC's best interests. Hospital A reported concerns, among other things, of B not cooperating, and becoming verbally aggressive, with hospital staff. 4 In October 2024, a single Member of the Tribunal appointed the Public Trustee as MC's plenary administrator and the Public Advocate as her limited guardian to make decisions about accommodation, medical treatment and services (2024 Orders).1 5 B sought review of the 2024 Orders under s 17A of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) which provides for a decision of a single Member to be reviewed by the Full Tribunal. B proposed herself as MC's guardian and administrator, however the Full Tribunal made the 2025 Orders which continued the appointment of the Public Advocate and Public Trustee. The functions of the guardian were expanded to add 'contact', among other things. The 2025 Orders are due to be reviewed by 26 March 2030. 6 In October 2025, B filed the current application to review the 2025 Orders under s 86 of the GA Act. An order was made that the question of leave to review the 2025 Orders would be determined at the hearing and if granted, the review would occur. 1 The reasons for decision in this matter are published as MC [2024] WASAT 119. -- 3 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 4 7 The matter was heard on 31 March 2026. The delegated guardian from the Public Advocate attended the hearing along with B, her brother M, their father (MC's former husband) J and B's son Z. 8 For the reasons set out below, leave is not granted for the review. Principles to be observed by the Tribunal 9 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.2 The Tribunal shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of the person concerned as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from the person's previous actions.3 10 Any person can request the Tribunal to review a guardianship or administration order. Section 86 of the GA Act provides a right of review to the persons directly involved in the performance of the guardianship and administration orders, being the Public Advocate, the Public Trustee, the represented person, the guardian or the administrator. The GA Act provides that any other person seeking a review of orders must be granted leave of the Tribunal to do so. The Tribunal may only grant leave 'if it is satisfied that because of a change of circumstances or for any other reason a review should be held'.4 11 The Full Tribunal has articulated three reasons why there is a requirement for leave.5 First, as Tribunal proceedings can be disruptive and cause anxiety for the represented person, orders should only be reviewed if there is a good reason to do so. Further, persons who are not directly affected by the orders should not be permitted to seek a review as of right. 12 Second, when making guardianship and administration orders, the Tribunal takes all the available evidence into account and sets an appropriate date to review the orders. Therefore, orders should not be reviewed in advance of the review period determined by the Tribunal unless there is a good reason for doing so. 13 Third, the Tribunal engages in an inquisitorial process when determining matters under the GA Act and invites or requires persons 2 GA Act, s 4(2). 3 GA Act, s 4(7). 4 GA Act, s 87(5). 5 RK [2022] WASAT 112 (RK) at [38] - [40]. -- 4 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 5 with relevant information to provide evidence and have an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. The Tribunal expects parties to draw to its attention all relevant information in relation to the matters to be resolved in respect of the proposed represented person's capacity, the suitability of persons proposing themselves for appointment and any related matters. In RK, the Full Tribunal stated:6 40 … The requirement for a change of circumstances, or other reason sufficient to warrant a review, reinforces the importance of providing all relevant information to the Tribunal at the hearing at which the challenged decision was made. 41 In our view, in order to determine whether there has been a change of circumstances, the Tribunal must make a comparison between the circumstances in existence at the time the challenged decision was made, and those in existence at the time of the application for leave. The Parliament's clear concern is to ensure that orders of the Tribunal which so profoundly affect the life of a represented person should not be able to be reviewed, on the application of persons other than those directly involved in the implementation of the orders, without good reason. That being the case, an applicant for leave who was a party who participated in the hearing at which the challenged decision was made, and who relies on a change in circumstance, will ordinarily need to identify some new evidence: (a) not previously drawn to the Tribunal's attention; (b) which is relevant to the appointment of a guardian or administrator for the represented person; and (c) which was not known by the applicant for leave, or which was not something that could reasonably have been ascertained by them, prior to the hearing at which the challenged decision was made. 42 Reliance on matters previously drawn to the Tribunal's attention at the hearing at which the challenged decision was made, or which were known by the applicant for leave, but not drawn to the Tribunal's attention at that hearing, or which could reasonably have been ascertained by the applicant for leave prior to the hearing of the challenged decision, and drawn to the attention of the Tribunal in that hearing, will not ordinarily constitute a change of circumstances. 43 Persons who were not parties at the hearing at which the challenged decision was made, or who do not rely on a change 6 RK at [40] - [44]. -- 5 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 6 of circumstances, will need to satisfy the Tribunal that there is some 'other reason' that the review should be held. It is not the case that any reason whatsoever will suffice. The reason must be such as to warrant revisiting the issues dealt with by the Tribunal at the hearing at which the challenged decision was made. By way of example, such a reason may exist if a person who should have been given notice of the hearing of the challenged decision was not, in fact, made aware of it. Another example of an 'other reason' may be if an applicant for leave produces evidence, or identifies an issue, which would suggest that the challenged decision was not, or is no longer, in the represented person's best interests. 44 In determining whether leave should be granted - either on the basis of a change of circumstances, or on the basis of an 'other reason' - the Tribunal's primary concern is the best interests of the represented person. (Footnote omitted) Issues 14 The issues I need to determine are: (a) whether there has been a change in circumstances since the 2025 Orders were made; (b) whether there is some other reason that 'suggests that the challenged decision was not, or is no longer, in the represented person's best interests'?;7 (c) what are MC's views and wishes about this matter; and (d) should leave be granted to B to review the 2025 Orders? Has there been a change in the circumstances surrounding MC? 15 It is first necessary to set out the circumstances that existed when the 2025 Orders were made. B had proposed herself for appointment as MC's guardian and administrator in her application made under s 17A of the GA Act to review the 2024 Orders. Circumstances surrounding MC in March 2025 16 The first hearing occurred before the Full Tribunal in February 2025 (First Hearing). MC was living in the Nursing Home due to her high care needs and complex medical issues. B and her brother M were estranged and the conflict between them was evident at the Tribunal 7 RK at [43]. -- 6 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 7 hearings. Their father J attended the First Hearing to support B's application for appointment as guardian and administrator. 17 The report prepared by the delegated guardian in January 2025 mentioned the ongoing concerns with B's behaviour at the Nursing Home. On one occasion, B attempted to force MC into her car and take her from the Nursing Home. The Residential Manager of the Nursing Home gave evidence that B had made threatening comments to staff and it was necessary to call the police due to B's behaviour.8 The guardian requested that the Tribunal include a further authority in the orders to allow the guardian to make decisions about who MC would have contact with and the extent of that contact. 18 The Full Tribunal was unable to make a decision at the First Hearing as B advised the President that she no longer wanted to speak to the Tribunal and terminated the call.9 The matter was next heard on 26 March 2025 (Second Hearing) to provide B with another opportunity to participate in the matter before a decision was made. 19 At the Second Hearing, B advised that she agreed for the Public Advocate to be the guardian and sought to withdraw the application to review the guardianship order.10 However, the withdrawal was not granted because it was necessary to add further functions to the guardianship order, including the contact function. 20 B had also changed her position in relation to administration and sought to be jointly appointed with the Public Trustee. A large portion of the Second Hearing was spent discussing the $500 annual gifting authority, which B incorrectly interpreted as providing MC with only $500 per year to spend on her needs. Another issue discussed in depth was the multiple reports of B not being able to work cooperatively with other people and causing conflict. The Full Tribunal was unable to find B suitable to act as administrator due to the concern that B would not be able to work with the guardian due to her history of verbal aggression. 21 B did not attend the entirety of the Second Hearing to hear the reasons for the decision of the Full Tribunal. The transcript records the circumstances in which B left the Second Hearing as follows:11 8 ts 23 - 24, 17 February 2025. 9 ts 31, 17 February 2025. B attended the First and Second Hearings by telephone. 10 ts 5, 26 March 2025. 11 ts 32, 26 March 2025. -- 7 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 8 The evidence before us from [B's] presentation in the course of this hearing is that she is unable to manage her emotions appropriately and speak respectfully with people that may need to be involved in decision-making, and we are not satisfied that she would be able to therefore work well with the Public Advocate and serve [MC's] best interests if she was the administrator. We are also concerned that she would be incapable of understanding the financial decisions that need to be made, that concern arising for us because [B] was fixated on the idea that the gifting provision which allowed gifting of up to $500 - And just for the record I note that [B] has hung up and won't be hearing the rest of this decision. 22 In summary, the circumstances surrounding MC that existed when the Tribunal made the 2025 Orders were: (a) MC had advanced dementia and was living in the Nursing Home; (b) B had proposed herself for appointment as guardian but then withdrew her nomination; (c) B proposed herself for appointment as administrator jointly with the Public Trustee; (d) B was unable to manage her emotions during the Tribunal Hearings and the Nursing Home had experienced issues with B's behaviour; (e) there was significant conflict between B and her brother M; and (f) J was supportive of B's appointment as guardian and administrator. Circumstances surrounding MC in March 2026 23 The requirement to demonstrate a change in circumstances since the 2025 Orders were made was explained to B and J multiple times. B and J asserted the following matters constituted a change in circumstances: (a) B was aggrieved by the 2025 Orders as they were made based on incorrect information; (b) B and J were dissatisfied with the decisions made by the Public Trustee and Public Advocate. B asserted that the -- 8 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 9 Public Trustee behaved offensively, was unprofessional, used 'coercive power' over B and bullied her;12 (c) B and J lacked confidence and faith in the Public Trustee due to mail addressed to B allegedly being received by the Public Trustee, opened, and then emailed to B.13 B and J asserted that these actions were unlawful; and (d) B was suitable to be appointed as the guardian and administrator. Being aggrieved with 2025 Orders 24 B contended that the evidence before the Tribunal in 2024, that she discharged MC from Hospital A against medical evidence, was not correct. When I reminded her that it was necessary to demonstrate a change in circumstances, B asserted that she was being censored by the requirement to only discuss matters occurring since March 2025.14 25 J's view was that the decisions made by the Public Trustee and Public Advocate under the 2025 Orders were inappropriate and have caused frustration for B, which has impacted on her wellbeing.15 J said that he came to the hearing to support B and he viewed the best outcome as being B's appointment as administrator and guardian.16 26 B's assertion the 2025 Orders were made on incorrect information, and the fact she is frustrated by the decisions being made, is not a basis upon which the Tribunal would grant leave under s 87 for a 'change in circumstances' since the 2025 Orders were made.17 Dissatisfaction and lack of confidence 27 B and J explained their dissatisfaction with the decisions made by the Public Trustee and Public Advocate, and why they lacked confidence in the administrator.18 However, being dissatisfied is not a change in circumstances that would justify the grant of leave. I explained that there are appropriate channels to make complaints about the conduct of the guardian and administrator as the Tribunal is unable to deal with such concerns. It is not the Tribunal's role to 12 ts 7 and 19, 31 March 2026. 13 ts 33, 31 March 2026. 14 ts 14, 31 March 2026. 15 ts 17 - 18, 31 March 2026. 16 ts 45 - 46, 31 March 2026. 17 K [2025] WASAT 67 at [14]. 18 ts 14 - 18, 31 March 2026. -- 9 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 10 'review the merits of the myriad of daily decisions which may be made by a guardian or administrator in the exercise of their decision-making authority'.19 28 I find that dissatisfaction with the decisions made by the Public Trustee and Public Advocate is not a change in MC's circumstances that would give rise to a reason justifying the grant of leave. B's assertion she is suitable for appointment 29 B and J submitted that B was suitable to be appointed as guardian and administrator.20 J was clearly aligned with B and supported her views.21 J's position was that the Public Advocate and Public Trustee are unable to devote the same amount of attention to the roles as B could. 30 However, I observed that B was unable to manage her emotions during the hearing or speak respectfully to me, which is consistent with her presentation in the hearings preceding the making of the 2025 Orders. Among other things, B accused me of victim blaming, described me asking her questions as 'disgusting', alleged I was going to throw something at her and accused me of threatening her.22 31 There were occasions in the hearing where J asked B to stop speaking, which appeared to be an attempt to modify B's behaviour when she was becoming emotionally dysregulated.23 J corrected B when she addressed me incorrectly,24 told her to 'calm down' and stop speaking when she was raising her voice.25 J also asked B to be quiet, listen to what was being said and stop interrupting.26 32 I did not observe a discernible difference in B's behaviour at the hearing from what I observed in February and March 2025 that would persuade me that there had been a change in circumstances. M confirmed his view, in submissions filed with the Tribunal, that B's 19 RK at [35]. 20 ts 7 and 46, 31 March 2026. 21 ts 16, 31 March 2026. 22 ts 30, 43 and 45, 31 March 2026. 23 ts 19, 31 March 2026. 24 ts 28, 31 March 2026. 25 ts 31, 31 March 2026. 26 ts 39 - 40, 41 and 44, 31 March 2026. -- 10 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 11 behaviour continued to be problematic and she should not be appointed as MC's decision-maker.27 33 I am satisfied that B proposing herself for appointment as sole guardian and administrator is not a change in circumstances, particularly when the predominant reason why B was unable to be found suitable for appointment by the Full Tribunal, being her inability to cooperate with others, is still present. These matters were before the Tribunal when B's s 17A application was made in early 2025, and B had merely changed her mind between the First and Second Hearings. Therefore, B now proposing herself and asserting she is suitable for appointment is not a change in the circumstances surrounding MC that would give rise to a reason justifying the grant of leave. Is there some other reason that 'suggests that the challenged decision was not, or is no longer, in the represented person's best interests'? 34 As set out in RK,28 anyone relying on 'some other reason' must provide a reason that warrants revisiting the issues dealt with by the Tribunal in March 2025 when the 2025 Orders were made, such as if new evidence is produced or an issue is identified that suggests that the challenged orders are no longer in the represented person's best interests. 35 At the end of the hearing, I advised the parties that I would reserve my decision and the Tribunal would notify the parties of my decision once made. J then said:29 Can I ask a question at the moment, just while you're in the throes of thinking about that decision? Am I able to be nominated as the guardian and administrator? 36 As I had advised the parties that my decision was reserved, I will not consider J's proposal that he be appointed as MC's guardian or administrator in terms of 'some other reason'. That does not mean that he is precluded from making an application to review the 2025 Orders if he wishes to be considered for appointment. 37 Further, I have not taken into account any other material lodged with the Tribunal since the hearing of 31 March 2026. 27 Submissions filed on 26 March 2026. 28 RK at [40]. 29 ts 46, 31 March 2026. -- 11 of 12 -- [2026] WASAT 45 Page 12 What are MC's views and wishes in relation to this matter? 38 MC did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal was advised by the Clinical Nurse Manager at the Nursing Home that it would be too distressing and confusing for MC to attend the hearing. 39 I am satisfied that due to MC's advanced dementia, it is not possible to ascertain her specific views and wishes about whether or not leave should be granted for a review of the orders. Should leave be granted for B to review the 2025 orders? 40 I am satisfied, and I find, there has been no change in circumstances since the 2025 Orders were made, and there is no other reason that would justify the grant of leave to review the 2025 Orders under s 87 of the GA Act. Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. Leave is refused to the applicant to apply for the review because the application does not disclose any change in circumstances or any other reason that a review should be held. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MS R BUNNEY, MEMBER 1 MAY 2026 -- 12 of 12 --