Factors Relevant to Determining Whether a Person with a Mental Disability is Unable to Make Reasonable Judgments in Respect of Their Estate

When determining whether an individual with a mental disability is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their estate, the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) ("GA Act") sets out specific criteria that must be satisfied.

This blog post discusses these factors, drawing from the case Re RK [2021] WASAT 13, and examines how they can be applied in practice.

1. The Mental Disability Requirement

Section 64(1)(a) of the GA Act requires that a person be "unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate".

This means that the person must have a mental disability, and their inability to make reasonable judgments must arise because of that mental disability.

In Re RK, the Tribunal found that RK had a mental disability, and that this was the cause of his inability to make reasonable judgments in respect of his estate.

2. Subjective and Objective Tests

The application of Section 64(1)(a) involves both subjective and objective tests.

The subjective test requires assessing the person's ability to make reasonable judgments in relation to their actual estate.

The objective test, on the other hand, considers whether the person has the ability to engage in the mental reasoning required to make such judgments.

3. Factors Affecting a Person's Ability to Make Reasonable Judgments

A person's ability to make reasonable judgments in respect of their estate may depend on a variety of factors, such as their health and mental health.

Ultimately, an individual must have the intellectual ability necessary to make decisions related to their estate.

This includes the ability to:

- Understand the need for and sources of income

- Comprehend the value of income relative to expenditures

- Identify and calculate necessary expenditures for daily living and long-term financial objectives

- Devise a budget to live within their means

- Assess the financial implications of various decisions and contracts

- Organize their affairs to meet debts as they fall due

- Identify and implement problem-solving strategies for resolving unexpected financial issues

4. Estate Definition

In the context of the GA Act, a person's "estate" refers to the aggregate of their property, assets, and liabilities.

This encompasses the entirety of their real and personal property and all financial affairs.

5. Causation

The phrase "by reason of" in Section 64(1)(a) of the GA Act implies a relationship of cause and effect between a mental disability and a person's inability to make reasonable judgments in respect of their estate.

In Re RK, the Tribunal found that RK's mental disability was the cause of his inability to make reasonable judgments, although he was still able to make occasional decisions regarding simple discretionary expenditure.

Key take-away

• When assessing whether a person with a mental disability is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of their estate, it is crucial to consider the relevant factors as set out in the GA Act and case law such as Re RK.

Understanding Sterilisation Procedures and Best Interests in Guardianship Matters

Sterilisation is a significant and often irreversible medical procedure that can have life-altering consequences for the person involved.

In guardianship matters, it is crucial to ensure that any decision to authorise a sterilisation procedure is made in the best interests of the person concerned.

In this blog post, I examine the factors that are relevant in determining whether a sterilisation procedure is in a person's best interests, with reference to the Western Australian case of EW v CD [2021] WASAT 111 and the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (the GA Act).

Statutory Framework

The GA Act governs the authority of guardians in relation to medical treatment for represented persons, including sterilisation procedures (s 13).

Guardians may be authorised to make decisions on behalf of a represented person regarding medical treatment, but the GA Act specifically prohibits a guardian from consenting to the sterilisation of a represented person except in accordance with Division 3 of Part 5 of the Act (s 13).

Importantly, the GA Act does not define the term "sterilisation" but does provide a definition for "procedure for the sterilisation" (s 15).

The GA Act strictly regulates the circumstances in which the sterilisation of a represented person may take place, including requiring the consent of both the guardian and the Tribunal, and ensuring that all rights of appeal have been exhausted (s 17).

Best Interests

The key consideration in determining whether a sterilisation procedure is appropriate is whether it is in the person's best interests (s 22).

The GA Act does not provide a specific definition of "best interests", but s 51(2) offers guidance on how a guardian should act in the best interests of a represented person, including considerations such as community participation, self-care, protection from neglect or abuse, and the maintenance of supportive relationships and cultural environments.

In the case of EW v CD [2021] WASAT 111, the Tribunal considered the principles set out in Re Jane, which identified nine factors relevant to determining whether a sterilisation procedure was in the best interests of a person (para 25).

These factors include:

1. The possibility of the person becoming pregnant;

2. The potential for trauma or psychological damage from pregnancy or sterilisation;

3. The likelihood of voluntary sexual activity or rape;

4. The person's ability to understand reproduction or contraception and the likely permanence of that inability;

5. The feasibility of less drastic means of contraception;

6. The advisability of sterilisation at the time of the application rather than in the future;

7. The person's ability to care for a child;

8. The potential for medical or scientific advances that may improve the person's condition or offer less drastic sterilisation procedures; and

9. Evidence that the proponents of sterilisation are genuinely seeking the best interests of the person, rather than their own or the public's convenience.

Key take-aways

• In guardianship matters, the decision to authorise a sterilisation procedure must always be made with the best interests of the person in mind.

• A careful and thorough consideration of the relevant factors outlined in Re Jane, as well as the specific circumstances of the individual case, is crucial in determining whether a sterilisation procedure is in a person's best interests.

• Guardians should always be mindful of these factors and the strict regulatory requirements under the GA Act when considering sterilisation procedures for represented persons.

Understanding Breaches of Undertakings in Guardianship Matters

In guardianship matters, undertakings are solemn promises made to the court or tribunal that can have serious consequences if breached.

A recent decision in Western Australia highlights the importance of understanding the implications of such undertakings and the potential consequences for parties involved in these matters.

In this blog post, I discuss the significance of undertakings, particularly in guardianship matters, and provide insights into the consequences of breaching them.

The Importance of Undertakings in Guardianship Matters

Undertakings play a crucial role in legal proceedings, particularly in guardianship matters.

They serve as a means to ensure that parties act in the best interests of the person under guardianship and comply with the directions of the court or tribunal.

When an undertaking is given, it is expected that the party providing it fully understands the gravity of their commitment and the possible consequences of breaching it.

Breaching Undertakings and Contempt of Court

In the case of Dc [2021] WASAT 130, it was held that the conduct of both the father and the son was capable of constituting contempt of the Supreme Court.

This decision was based on the fact that the father had given an undertaking not to sell or otherwise deal with a particular property, and yet, he permitted the transfer of the property to his son, effectively breaching the undertaking (Dc [2021] WASAT 130, [26]-[28]).

Furthermore, the son was found to have aided and abetted his father's breach of the undertaking, which in itself constituted contempt (Dc [2021] WASAT 130, [29]-[35]).

It is essential to understand that aiding and abetting a contempt constitutes a contempt in its own right, regardless of whether the individual was directly bound by the injunction or undertaking (Seaward v Paterson, cited in Dc [2021] WASAT 130, [30]-[31]).

In this case, the Tribunal was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the conduct of both the father and the son was capable of constituting contempt of the Supreme Court (Dc [2021] WASAT 130, [26], [29]).

Consequently, the Tribunal reported the alleged contempts to the Supreme Court for further action (Dc [2021] WASAT 130, [38]).

Key Takeaways

• The decision in Dc [2021] WASAT 130 serves as a reminder that undertakings given in guardianship matters are not to be taken lightly.

• Breaching an undertaking can have severe consequences, including being held in contempt of court. It is crucial for all parties involved in a guardianship matter to understand the undertakings they provide and their obligations under the relevant legislation, such as the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).

If you have any concerns or questions about your obligations in a guardianship matter, it is advisable to seek professional legal advice from a qualified guardianship lawyer.

I can guide you through the process and help you navigate the complexities of guardianship law to ensure that you fulfil your legal obligations and act in the best interests of the person under guardianship.

You can contact me here.

Rebutting the Presumption of Capacity in Guardianship Matters

As a guardianship lawyer in Western Australia, I often receive questions about the concept of capacity and the process of proving that an individual lacks decision-making capacity in guardianship and administration matters.

In this blog post, I will explore the statutory presumption of capacity, and what is necessary to rebut this presumption in light of the decision in MH [2022] WASAT 74.

Statutory Presumption of Capacity

The Guardianship and Administration Act (the GA Act) establishes a fundamental principle: the statutory presumption of capacity.

This presumption serves to protect individuals who are the subject of proceedings under the GA Act from having their decision-making capacity removed and a substitute decision-maker appointed for them without clear and cogent evidence.

As stated in MH [2022] WASAT 74 at [130], the statutory presumption of capacity is the starting point in any application under the GA Act where the decision-making capacity of a person is in issue.

It is important to note that a person who is the subject of an application for guardianship or administration orders does not need to prove that they have decision-making capacity.

The Tribunal starts from the position that the person has capacity (by virtue of the statutory presumption).

Rebutting the Presumption of Capacity

In order to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity, clear and cogent evidence is required (MH [2022] WASAT 74 at [131]).

The evidence must be sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that the person lacks the relevant decision-making capacity.

The standard of proof applied by the Tribunal is the civil standard (balance of probabilities).

However, due to the significant consequences of a finding that a person does not have decision-making capacity, clear and cogent evidence is required to establish the facts on which that conclusion depends.

In the case of MH [2022] WASAT 74, the Tribunal found at [132] that the medical evidence, together with the evidence of other witnesses, was sufficient to displace the presumption in the GA Act that Mrs MH was capable of looking after her own health and safety and making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mrs MH was incapable of looking after her own health and safety and unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person (at [133]).

This finding led the Tribunal to conclude that Mrs MH was in need of oversight, care, or control in the interests of her own health and safety (at [134]).

Key take-aways

• The statutory presumption of capacity is a fundamental principle under the GA Act, and serves to protect individuals from having their decision-making capacity removed without sufficient evidence.

• To rebut this presumption, clear and cogent evidence must be provided to satisfy the Tribunal that the person lacks decision-making capacity.

• The decision in MH [2022] WASAT 74 serves as a useful illustration of how this process works in practice. I

• If you have any questions or concerns about capacity and guardianship matters, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Understanding the Validity of Advanced Health Directives in Western Australia

Advanced health directives (AHDs) are legal documents that allow individuals to make decisions about their future medical treatment in the event they become unable to communicate their preferences.

AHDs play a significant role in preserving an individual's autonomy and respecting their wishes regarding medical treatment. In this blog post, I discuss the factors that may render an AHD invalid, relying on the recent Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal decision, JH [2022] WASAT 108.

This case provides valuable insight into the criteria that must be met for an AHD to be considered valid.

Factors Affecting the Validity of an AHD

1. Voluntariness

An AHD must be made voluntarily and free from any form of inducement or coercion.

In JH [2022] WASAT 108, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence to suggest that the AHD was made involuntarily or under any form of coercion.

The decision-makers found that Ms JH had discussed her AHD with her family members, and they respected her wishes.

This supports the conclusion that the AHD was made voluntarily.

2. Understanding the Nature of the Treatment Decision and Consequences

An AHD may be considered invalid if the maker did not understand the nature of the treatment decision or the consequences of making such a decision.

In JH [2022] WASAT 108, the Tribunal found that Ms JH understood the nature of the treatment decisions and the consequences of those decisions.

The AHD in question contained simple treatment decisions—refusing consent to be resuscitated or put on life support.

The Tribunal also considered the fact that Ms JH's general practitioner witnessed the AHD, which further supports the conclusion that she understood the nature and consequences of her treatment decisions.

Legislation

In Western Australia, the validity of an AHD is governed by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).

The Act sets out the criteria for creating a valid AHD, including requirements related to voluntariness, understanding the nature and consequences of treatment decisions, and proper witnessing of the document.

Key take-aways

• The case of JH [2022] WASAT 108 provides a useful example of the factors that the Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal considers when determining the validity of an AHD.

• When drafting an AHD, it is important to ensure that the document is made voluntarily and that the individual creating the AHD understands the nature and consequences of the treatment decisions they are making.

• Consulting a guardianship lawyer, like myself, can help ensure that your AHD is legally valid and reflects your wishes for future medical treatment. You can contact me here.

Appointment of an Administrator After a Court Compensation Trust Has Been Established

The appointment of an administrator after a court compensation trust has been established can be a complex process, as illustrated by the case of LS [2019] WASAT 97.

In this blog post, we will discuss the appointment of an administrator after a court compensation trust has been established, using the LS case as an example, while also referencing relevant legislation from the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act).

Background

In the LS case, a young man sustained a severe brain injury in a motor vehicle accident and later received a settlement of just over $8 million from a personal injuries claim, which was placed in a court compensation trust [1, 5].

A trustee company was appointed as administrator to manage the funds [2, 9]. This appointment was made under the GA Act [3].

The Need for an Administrator

The appointment of an administrator is essential when a person is deemed unable to make reasonable judgments relating to their estate due to mental disability [13].

In the LS case, the Tribunal found that LS was unable to make reasonable judgments relating to his estate because of his acquired brain injury, and that an administrator was needed [13].

This determination was made subject to the principles set out in s 4 of the GA Act, including the presumption of capacity and the best interests of the person [14].

The Cheyne Decision and Its Impact

The need for the appointment of an administrator in cases like LS's arose from the decision in Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Cheyne [2011] WASC 225 (Cheyne) [10].

The Cheyne decision established the following essential elements for such cases [59]:

1. A person is granted an award of damages arising from a personal injury claim.

2. A court compensation trust is created, and a trustee is appointed.

3. The trustee is given the power to apply funds for the maintenance, welfare, advancement, or benefit of the person.

4. If the person is assessed as having total and permanent disability, funds can be transferred to a superannuation fund for tax benefits.

5. Funds in the superannuation fund can be immediately used for the person's needs.

6. Funds can move between the court compensation trust and the superannuation fund.

The Cheyne decision allowed for a practical solution to protect the interests of a person under disability who is subject to a court compensation trust and stands to receive significant financial benefits from the application of those funds to superannuation [62].

Tribunal's Independent Jurisdiction

The Tribunal has independent jurisdiction under the GA Act to appoint an administrator for a person's estate [63].

It must independently find that the person satisfies the requirements of s 64(1) of the GA Act, subject to the principles set out in s 4 [63].

The Tribunal must also be prepared to revoke an existing administration order if the person no longer meets the statutory test for incapacity [65].

Key takeaways

• The appointment of an administrator after a court compensation trust has been established is crucial for protecting the interests of a person under disability.

• The Tribunal has independent jurisdiction under the GA Act to appoint an administrator and must ensure that the person meets the requirements for incapacity.

• The Cheyne decision provided a practical solution for these situations, offering a balance between the need for financial management and the best interests of the person under disability.

Cases referred to in this blog:

• LS [2019] WASAT 97

• Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Cheyne [2011] WASC 225

When Should Leave Be Granted Under Section 87 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)?

Guardianship and administration orders have a significant impact on the autonomy of a represented person.

This blog provides an overview of when leave should be granted under section 87 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (the GA Act) for a review of guardianship or administration orders, drawing on the principles discussed in RK [2022] WASAT 112.

Legislative Context

Under the GA Act, there are four ways in which a guardianship or administration order may be reviewed:

1. The Tribunal must review the order within a specified period not exceeding five years, in line with the principles of section 4 of the GA Act.

2. An aggrieved party may request a review by a Full Tribunal within 28 days, or with an extension granted by the Full Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal is required to review the order if the appointed guardian or administrator is unable to carry out their role for various reasons, including death, incapacity, or neglect.

4. The GA Act allows a represented person, a guardian, an administrator, the Public Advocate, or the Public Trustee to request a review at any time.

Section 87 of the GA Act also permits other persons to apply for a review at any time, but they must obtain the leave of the Tribunal to do so. The Tribunal may grant leave if it is satisfied that a review should be held due to a change of circumstances or for any other reason.

Reasons for the Requirement of Leave

As discussed in RK [2022] WASAT 112, there are three reasons for requiring leave for a review:

1. Guardianship and administration orders should not be displaced without good reason, as they may cause anxiety and disruption in the life of a represented person.

2. The Tribunal is required to fix a period for the review of any guardianship or administration order, and the order should not be reviewed in advance of the specified period unless there is a good reason to do so.

3. The Tribunal engages in an inquisitorial process when making orders and expects all relevant information to be provided at the hearing of the challenged decision.

Criteria for Granting Leave

To be granted leave under section 87 of the GA Act, applicants must fulfil the following conditions:

1. In cases where the applicant is relying on a change in circumstances, they are required to present new evidence that:

   a. Has not been previously brought to the attention of the Tribunal;

   b. Holds relevance to the appointment of a guardian or administrator; and

   c. Was either unknown or could not have been reasonably discovered by the applicant prior to the hearing of the challenged decision.

2. If the applicant is not relying on a change in circumstances or was not a party during the hearing of the challenged decision, they must provide an "other reason" justifying the review. For instance, the applicant could show that they were not notified of the hearing or that the challenged decision is no longer, or was never, in the best interests of the represented person.

Ultimately, the primary focus of the Tribunal when deciding whether to grant leave is the best interests of the person being represented.

Key take-aways

• Leave for a review of guardianship or administration orders under section 87 of the GA Act is only granted when the Tribunal is satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances or an "other reason" warranting the review.

• Understanding the legislative framework and the principles laid out in RK [2022] WASAT 112 is essential for navigating the process of seeking leave for review of these orders in Western Australia.

Alzheimer’s Disease - Coping with Alzheimer’s

Caring For a Loved One with Alzheimer's Disease

To ensure appropriate and effective caregiving for loved one’s with Alzheimer’s Disease, the following steps should be taken by carers and family members:

1. Educating oneself about the stages and symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, by attending support groups and seeking the advice of healthcare professionals.

2. Creating a safe and comfortable environment, making sure the person’s surroundings are free of hazards and ensuring easy access to important items (such as medication).

3. Establish a daily routine, including a set schedule for meals, activities, and personal care, to help your loved one feel more secure and comfortable.

4. Encourage social interaction, especially activities that your loved one enjoys, such as card games, going for walks and spending quality time with friends and family.

5. Be patient and understanding, respecting that people with Alzheimer’s disease can easily become confused, agitated, or disoriented, and are often not intentionally behaving in a difficult manner.

6. Take time to rest and recharge as a caregiver, seeking support from family and friends where needed.

This multi-faceted approach ensures the most appropriate and effective care can be provided for loved ones living with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Support Resources for Caregivers and Families

Dementia Australia is the peak body for people living with dementia and their caregivers, providing support, information, and advocacy, including counselling, support groups and education programs.

Carer Gateway is a government-funded service that provides information, education, counselling, respite care and financial support for people living with Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers.

My Aged Care is a government-funded service, offering assessments, support planning, and assistance with access to aged care services.

National Dementia Helpline (1800 100 500) is a free, confidential service that provides information, support, and advice to people living with dementia and their caregivers.

Lifestyle Changes to Reduce Risk of Alzheimer’s

Making healthy lifestyle choices can help to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, or delay the onset of the disease.

These healthy lifestyle choices should include:

1. At least 30 minutes of regular exercise on most days of the week, which studies have shown to have a positive effect on brain health.

2. A healthy diet, rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats.

3. Activities such as reading, puzzles, or learning a new skill, to keep the brain active and engaged.

4. Maintaining social connections and activities.

5. At least 7 hours of quality sleep per night, to boost overall brain health.

6. Making regular appointments with a General Practitioner, to manage chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol.

7. Keeping alcohol consumption to moderate levels, to protect brain health.

These healthy lifestyle choices provide a starting point for reducing one’s risk of Alzheimer’s Disease.

If you need an experienced guardianship lawyer for help navigating an application for guardianship and/or administration, feel welcome to contact me. I will be happy to help.

Suspicions alone not sufficient for Tribunal intervention under s 109 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)

Introduction

As a guardianship lawyer in Western Australia, I am often asked about the powers and limitations of the State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in relation to enduring powers of attorney.

In this blog post, I discuss the decision of PT [2020] WASAT 147, which highlights the importance of establishing a proper reason for the Tribunal to make an order under section 109 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (the GA Act) after the donor of an enduring power of attorney has died.

Background

In PT [2020] WASAT 147, the applicants were daughters of the deceased donor (VM) of an enduring power of attorney, and sisters of the donee (GM). They sought orders under s 109(1)(a) and s 109(1)(b) of the GA Act to require GM to file and serve a copy of all records and accounts kept by him of dealings and transactions made by him in connection with the enduring power of attorney and to have those records and accounts audited by an auditor appointed by the Tribunal.

The Strike Out Application

GM applied to strike out the applicants' proceeding under s 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (the SAT Act), arguing that the application for orders under s 109 of the GA Act was for an ulterior purpose, namely, to gather information for the purposes of a family provision proceeding, and that the real issue was the extent of VM's deceased estate.

The Tribunal's Powers Under Section 109

Section 109 of the GA Act allows a person with a proper interest in the matter to apply to the Tribunal for an order relating to an enduring power of attorney, including requiring the donee to file and serve records and accounts, and requiring those records and accounts to be audited.

The Tribunal's powers under s 109 of the GA Act are limited, particularly in situations where the donor has died. In such cases, the Tribunal can only require the donee to account for his or her actions under the enduring power of attorney during the lifetime of the donor under s 109(1)(a) or s 109(1)(b) of the GA Act, and cannot have any other remedial effect.

The Importance of Establishing a Proper Reason

The Tribunal in PT [2020] WASAT 147 emphasized that there must be a proper reason established to justify the making of an order under s 109(1)(a) or s 109(1)(b) of the GA Act. Mere suspicion is not sufficient. In this case, the applicants' reason for seeking orders under s 109(1) was based on their belief that the deceased donor's statement of assets and liabilities did not accurately reflect her assets at the time of her death. The Tribunal found that this reason amounted to no more than a suspicion, which was not a proper reason for an order to be made under s 109(1)(a) or s 109(1)(b) of the GA Act.

Key Take-Aways

• PT [2020] WASAT 147 emphasizes that mere suspicions are inadequate for Tribunal intervention under section 109 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).

• To warrant an order under s 109(1)(a) or s 109(1)(b) of the GA Act, applicants must provide a valid reason.

• This requirement is especially important after the death of the enduring power of attorney's donor.

Understanding the Threshold for Guardianship Applications and Costs Consequences

Guardianship applications can be an essential legal tool for protecting the welfare of vulnerable individuals. However, they also carry significant consequences and should not be taken lightly. This blog post is about the threshold for making such applications in Western Australia, as well as the potential costs consequences for pursuing an application that does not meet this standard.

In this blog post, I make reference to WD [2022] WASAT 12, and refer to the relevant legislation, the Guardianship and Administration Act (GA Act).

Threshold for Making a Guardianship Application

The recent decision in WD [2022] WASAT 12 observed that guardianship and administration applications are "very intrusive and lead to the exploration of sensitive issues in a person's life."

As such, an applicant must have a reasonable belief, objectively grounded, of the grounds for making the application [53].

This means that the applicant should have strong evidence to support the need for the application and the belief that it is in the best interest of the person involved.

Costs Consequences

If an applicant is made aware that their application is unlikely to succeed, the Tribunal expects them to withdraw the application, unless they can provide contrary, probative medical evidence.

In cases where the applicant unreasonably pursues an untenable application, unnecessarily prolongs the application, or pursues it for an improper purpose, the Tribunal may consider awarding costs to the proposed represented person [54].

In WD [2022] WASAT 12, the Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct in pursuing the application warranted a costs order [91].

The applicant pressed contentions that were not supported by evidence, previously made in other fora without any findings in support, and not squarely addressed to the issues to be determined in the proceedings [91(a)].

The applicant also conducted the proceedings in a manner that resulted in significant legal costs for the proposed represented person [91(b)].

The Tribunal determined that it was appropriate for the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the proposed represented person in connection with the proceedings after a certain date [95].

Key take-aways

• Guardianship applications are an important legal tool, but they must be pursued responsibly and with a reasonable, objectively grounded belief. Applicants must be aware of the potential costs consequences if they do not meet this standard, as demonstrated in WD [2022] WASAT 12.

• To avoid unnecessary legal costs and potential harm to the proposed represented person, it is advisable to consult with an experienced guardianship lawyer before proceeding with an application. Please feel welcome to contact me.