AC [No 2] [2026] WASAT 30 (13 April 2026)

Section 112 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990

(1) A represented person, a person in respect of whom an application under this Act is made or a person representing any such person in any proceedings commenced under this Act is, unless the State Administrative Tribunal otherwise orders, entitled to inspect or otherwise have access to -

(a) any document or material lodged with or held by the Tribunal for the purposes of any application in respect of that person;

(b) any accounts submitted under section 80 by the administrator of the estate of that person.

(2) Any other party to any proceedings commenced under this Act, or a person representing any such party, is, unless the State Administrative Tribunal otherwise orders, entitled to inspect or otherwise have access to any document or material lodged with or held by the Tribunal for the purpose of those proceedings, other than a document or material that is or contains a medical opinion not being an opinion concerning that party.

(3) Except as provided in this section, no person (not being a member of the State Administrative Tribunal or a member of staff of the Tribunal) shall, unless he is authorised to do so by order of the Tribunal, inspect or otherwise have access to a document or material lodged with or held by the Tribunal for the purposes of any application, or to any accounts submitted under section 80.

Penalty: $2 000 or imprisonment for 9 months.

(4) The State Administrative Tribunal may on the application of any person -

(a) by order, authorise any person, whether conditionally or unconditionally, to inspect or otherwise have access to any document or material lodged with or held by the Tribunal for the purposes of any application; and

(b) make any other order contemplated by this section.

(5) An application under subsection (4) may be made ex parte or the State Administrative Tribunal may give directions as to the persons to whom notice of the application shall be given and who shall be entitled to be heard.

1. Consistent with the nature of the GA Act jurisdiction there are strict confidentiality provisions established in the GA Act.
2. Section 113 of the GA Act provides:

(1) No person performing any function under this Act shall, whether directly or indirectly, divulge any personal information obtained in the course of duty relating to a represented person or person in respect of whom an application is made, other than information that he is authorised or required to divulge -

(c) with the consent of the person, if he is capable of giving consent; or

1. These provisions were considered in CD [2020] WASAT 41 (CD) in which the then President of the Tribunal stated the following (citations omitted):[3]
   1. Even a cursory glance at s 112 and s 113 of the GA Act discloses immediately the strict requirements of confidentiality imposed in respect of documents and personal information held by the Tribunal in connection with the GA Act. That confidentiality is protected not only by criminal sanctions (under s 112(3) and s 113) but by strictly limited access provisions.
   2. The nature and extent of these protections for information held by the Tribunal under the GA Act is not surprising. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the GA Act is one in which the Tribunal receives personal information of the most sensitive kind. The provisions of the GA Act relating to the confidentiality of that information reinforce two important policies. The first is the protection of the privacy of the persons involved in the proceedings before the Tribunal, and in particular, of the proposed represented person or the represented person (as the case may be). The second is the public interest in the integrity of the Tribunal's processes, which relies on the ability to obtain sensitive information from a variety of sources.
   3. One of the sources of information available to the Tribunal under the GA Act is the proposed represented person himself or herself. The views of the proposed represented person are one of the considerations to which the Tribunal is obliged to have regard, to the extent that it is possible to obtain those views. If the willingness of proposed represented persons to be frank with the Tribunal in hearings were to be eroded by a lack of confidence in the privacy of their sensitive personal and health information, that would compromise the integrity of the Tribunal's processes.
   4. Furthermore, medical professionals and service providers (such as social workers, or aged care workers) are regularly asked to provide their opinion in relation to matters relating to the Tribunal's exercise of its functions under the GA Act, such as the capacity of a proposed represented person to make decisions relating to their personal care, or relating to their estate. The Tribunal's ability to exercise its functions under the GA Act is dependent on the willingness of those persons to provide their opinions on such matters. There is no doubt that the candour with which those opinions are expressed, and the willingness of those persons to provide their opinions other than by compulsion, would be jeopardised if the confidentiality of such information was not able to be protected by the Tribunal.
   5. In so far as access to documents is concerned, s 112 of the GA Act creates a distinction between three classes of persons. First, the proposed represented person, or the represented person, has a conditional entitlement to access any documents held by the Tribunal in respect to any application made for them, on the basis that they have a right to know the contents of such documents or material. The entitlement to inspection under s 112(1) of the GA Act applies only for purposes related to proceedings before the Tribunal, and the entitlement is, in any event, conditional on the Tribunal making a contrary order.
   6. Secondly, under s 112(2) of the GA Act, a party (other than the proposed represented person, whose position is addressed by s 112(1)) to a proceeding which has not yet been determined has a conditional entitlement to access to any document (other than a document or material containing medical opinion which does not concern that party) for the purpose of the proceeding. That entitlement reflects the need to accord procedural fairness to the parties to a proceeding.
   7. ... Once a proceeding has concluded - with a final determination by the Tribunal - a party to that proceeding no longer has an entitlement to inspect or access documents or material under s 112(2) of the GA Act. Instead, that party may apply to inspect or have access to documents pursuant to s 112(4) of the GA Act.
   8. Thirdly, any other persons may apply to inspect or obtain access to documents or materials held by the Tribunal under the GA Act, pursuant to s 112(4), but do so with no entitlement that such inspection or access will be granted. It is apparent that not only is the Tribunal given a discretion which allows it to control who has access to the information, but that the terms of s 112 of the GA Act require the Tribunal to exercise that discretion by considering what controls over access may be required in any given case.
   9. Under s 112(4) of the GA Act, the Tribunal has a broad discretion on application by any person, or on its own initiative, to allow inspection or access to documents or to withhold access to those documents. That power is not limited in its terms and in an appropriate case may include inspection or access to documents for purposes other than proceedings before the Tribunal.
   10. However, given the sensitive and confidential nature of much of the material held by the Tribunal, an applicant who requests the Tribunal to exercise its discretion under s 112(4) of the GA Act for purposes not relating to proceedings before the Tribunal must provide 'very cogent reasons and demonstrate a particular need as to why the inspection should be allowed'. It will not be sufficient to rely on a 'general desire to be informed'. Nor do convenience and cost savings amount to cogent reasons for permitting access to documents under s 112(4) of the GA Act.
   11. Applicants under s 112(4) of the GA Act - whether members of the public, or persons who were parties to proceedings of the Tribunal which have been determined and who seek access to documents or materials in relation to those proceedings - have no 'anticipatory entitlement' to inspect or otherwise have access to documents under that subsection. Instead, it is for the Tribunal in every case to decide if there are very good reasons to permit inspection or access having regard to the facts and circumstances raised in the application before it.
   12. Section 112(4) of the GA Act is not limited to applications to inspect or access documents or materials in pending applications, or which are sought for the purposes of determining an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal may permit a person to inspect or have access both to documents or materials that relate to an application pending before the Tribunal, and which relate to applications which have been determined. However, in exercising its discretion to grant access to documents for use other than in a proceeding under the GA Act, the Tribunal should act cautiously. In determining an application under s 112(4) of the GA Act, the Tribunal will weigh up the cogency of the reasons given for seeking access, on the one hand, and any factors which weigh against the grant of access, on the other hand.
2. In AB and the Public Trustee [2015] WASAT 68 it was held that:[4]
   1. Section 113 of the GA Act is the starting point for any consideration of s 112 of the GA Act.
   2. Section 113 of the GA Act is plainly intended to ensure that personal information provided to the Tribunal under the GA Act is confidential except in the circumstances set out in s 113(1)(a) - (d). Information does not cease to be confidential simply by reason of the death of a person.
3. The objects of the GA Act include:[5]

... to provide for the guardianship of adults who need assistance in their personal affairs, [and] for the administration of the estates of persons who need assistance in their financial affairs. ...

1. The primary concern of the Tribunal under the GA Act is the best interest of the proposed or represented person.[6] The legislation is not related to will making or the administration of estates of deceased persons. For example, in Re the Full Board of the Guardianship and Administration Board [2003] WASCA 268, at [57] Heenan J said:

The purposes of conserving the estate of a person under administration during his lifetime for his own advantage and benefit, which is so obvious in the Guardianship and Administration Act, cannot be regarded as extending to the conservation or preservation of the estate after death, where a person the subject of protection has ceased to have any mortal needs. This is expressly recognised in the Act by s 78(1)(b) which provides that the authority of an administrator of the estate of a represented person ceases on the death of the represented person.

1. MR asserts that she did not receive any notices from the Tribunal and now seeks access to information about AC's matters.
2. Three notices were sent by mail to MR to her confirmed home address. A notice of the original hearing and then subsequently orders of the Tribunal. MR did not attend the original or subsequent hearings. It is apparent from her statements in the application for access that she was aware of the proceedings through her brother, RC.
3. It was indicated during the proceedings that MR was estranged from AC. Whether or not this was accurate is not certain however it is the case that MR did not seek access to information about AC's matters from the Tribunal's file during AC's lifetime. The terms of her application for access since his death is that she was not informed about AC's matters. This appears to me to be in the character of a 'general desire to be informed'. A general desire to be informed has not been found to be a sufficient reason to grant access see MM (2001) 28 SR (WA) 320. This, as can be seen above, was followed in CD. I am not satisfied that MR has demonstrated cogent reasons for the grant of access to the documents held on the Tribunal's file in respect of AC. Therefore, I dismiss MR's application.

1. As noted above RC seeks access to material held on the Tribunal's file to obtain legal advice about challenging the will of AC.
2. There may be material held on a file of the Tribunal containing documents in proceedings commenced under the GA Act which may be said to have relevance for other proceedings which are outside the stated purposes of the GA Act.
3. In OR [2024] WASAT 2 (S) (OR) the Tribunal granted OR access to transcripts of hearings in the Tribunal concerning OR at his request. The Tribunal found that the grant of access was in OR's best interests[7] and relevant to 'closely related proceedings' in the Family Court which were property settlement proceedings between OR and his former wife who had acted under OR's enduring power of attorney.[8]
4. In the present case, RC seeks information to challenge a will made by AC in 2022.
5. Although the test for capacity to execute a will[9] and the tests established in the GA Act for the appointment of administrators[10] and guardians are different, material lodged with the Tribunal for the purposes of determinations of applications made under the GA Act might in some cases be relevant to the question of a proposed or represented person's testamentary capacity at some point in time.
6. There remains the question, however, whether material produced for the purposes of the GA Act or records submitted by health professionals on orders to enable the Tribunal to determine applications under the GA Act should be made available for a different purpose. In contrast to the position in OR, in the present application access is sought not to advance the represented person's interests but is directed to the interests of others.
7. To allow access to the documents to RC from the Tribunal's file, for the stated purpose of his application, does not uphold the public interest which was confirmed in CD in maintaining the integrity of the processes of the Tribunal, in determining applications for the appointment of guardians and administrators for persons for whom such applications are made.
8. As was stated, the exercise of that jurisdiction relies on the ability to obtain sensitive information from a variety of sources. The Tribunal is reliant on the willingness of medical and other professionals to provide reports to enable the Tribunal to undertake its functions under the GA Act.
9. As was confirmed if it were apparent that reports provided for the purposes of determining an application for the appointment of an administrator or a guardian would be made available in the way sought by the applicant then those who produce reports or put material before the Tribunal at hearings may be hesitant to do so.
10. Further the Tribunal also hears from the proposed represented person him or herself and from applicants and family members and others regarding their direct experience of the functioning of the proposed or represented person. These persons have a reasonable expectation that the information given will only be used in the GA Act proceedings.[11] It may compromise the willingness of those persons to give evidence or the frankness of that evidence given at a hearing of applications if as a matter of course the wider use of that material was contemplated.
11. For these reasons I dismiss RC's application.

1. The application made by [RC] under s 112(4) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) is dismissed.
2. The application made by [MR] under s 112(4) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

[1] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) s 60(2).

[2] KWD [2011] WASAT 4 at [60] - [62].

[3] CD [2020] WASAT 41 [34] - [45].

[4] AB and the Public Trustee at [13] - [14].

[9] The test for capacity to execute a will is that the testator have 'sound mind, memory and understanding': see Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 at 565.

[10] Section 64 of the GA Act requires a finding that the person is unable by reason of a mental disability to make reasonable judgements about any or all of his or her estate.

[11] PJB [2008] WASAT 190 at [46] cited in OR.