K [No 2] [2026] WASAT 23 (18 March 2026)

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4(2), s 4(3), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 43(1)(b), s 44(1), s 44(1)(c), s 44(2)(c), s 44(5), s 51(2), s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 68(1), s 68(3)(a), s 68(3)(b), s 80, s 84, s 113

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2), s 32(4)

Public Trustee reappointed as plenary administrator

GG [2021] WASAT 133

GS [2018] WASAT 72

K [2025] WASAT 67

K [2026] WASAT 16

1. K is a 42-year-old woman. She is intellectually disabled and profoundly deaf. K has lived in 24/7 supported independent living accommodation (the 'SIL Home') for almost 1 year. K's family is her mother D and her brothers N and C. She had another brother, R, who sadly passed away in 2014.
2. K lived with D for most of her life. D was K's guardian and administrator for 9 years until mid-2024 when the Tribunal revoked the orders because of concerns about K's welfare and financial mismanagement. Since then, K's decision-makers have been the Public Trustee and Public Advocate. This proceeding is a review pursuant to s 84 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) of the orders made on 19 March 2025, which are discussed shortly.
3. K's brother N lives close by and spends regular time with her. N and K were born 18 months apart and lived together for their whole childhoods. N wants the Public Advocate and Public Trustee to be reappointed as K's decision-makers. N wants K to remain living at the SIL Home where he says she is happy and healthy.
4. N has not spoken to D for around 1 year. D wants to be reappointed as K's guardian and administrator. D wants K to return to live with her as she misses K and relies on K's pension of $1,000 per fortnight to pay D's household expenses.
5. D and C have had a volatile relationship in the past but are currently getting along. However, C also wants to be K's guardian and administrator. C left home when K was 7 years old and has lived interstate for the last 30 years.
6. C and N have not had a relationship for around 15 years. The brothers do not agree on anything relating to K's care except neither of them support D's appointment as K's decision-maker. In short, there are complex relationships in the family and substantial conflict and mistrust.
7. The matter was heard on 5 March 2026 (March Hearing). I have concluded that neither D nor C are suitable to be appointed as K's guardian or administrator. In my opinion, reappointing the Public Advocate and Public Trustee as K's substitute decision-makers will ensure decisions are made in K's best interests by independent decision-makers for the next 5 years.
8. The guardianship order being reviewed appoints the Public Advocate as K's limited guardian to decide where she will live and with whom, her medical and other treatment, the services she will have access to, who she will have contact with, where she will travel and the 'next friend' legal function.
9. The administration order under review appoints the Public Trustee as K's plenary administrator with a direction to investigate whether K suffered any loss or damage by reason of any action or inaction by:

(a) CBUS Superannuation in paying R's death benefit to D; or

(b) any other person, including D as administrator of the represented person's estate, after D's appointment on 6 May 2015.

1. CBUS paid around $208,000 to D in 2017 (CBUS Funds). It was understood that K was the beneficiary of the CBUS Funds. It is not clear whether the CBUS Funds were paid to D to hold on trust for K or whether they were paid to D on the basis of an interdependent relationship between D and R. D's view is that the CBUS Funds were paid to her and she was entitled to them. The CBUS Funds were exhausted by late 2018.

1. 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, K.[1] The Tribunal must ascertain K's views and wishes, as far as possible.[2]
2. The starting point for the Tribunal is that every person is presumed to be capable of looking after their own health and safety, managing their own affairs and making reasonable judgments about matters relating to their estate and their person.[3] If this 'presumption of capacity' is set aside by cogent evidence, the Tribunal can consider making guardianship and administration orders.
3. The Tribunal must consider whether K's needs could be met by other means less restrictive on her freedom of decision and action. If the Tribunal makes an order, the order must impose the least restrictions possible.[4]
4. The Tribunal will take all facts and circumstances into account when determining K's best interests. The Tribunal may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit, and is not bound by the rules of evidence, which ensures, as far as possible, that all relevant information can be considered to make the correct decision in K's best interests.[5]
5. When making this decision, I have taken into account the evidence filed on K's matters since 2015 and the oral evidence given at Tribunal hearings over the last 2 years.[6] I have also taken into account the reasons for decision previously published in respect of K.[7] The evidence I have relied on is summarised in these reasons.

(a) whether K lacks the capacity to make decisions about her personal and financial matters;

(b) if so, whether there is a need to make an order, or whether there is another way for decisions to be made that is less restrictive on K's freedom of decision and action;[8]

(c) if so, who the guardian or administrator will be and the functions or powers they require; and

1. The most contentious issue for the Tribunal to determine in this review is who to appoint as guardian and administrator, as both D and C have nominated themselves for appointment.
2. The issues relating to K's capacity and the need for orders are dealt with first. I will then discuss K's views and wishes before considering who to appoint, the functions required and when the orders will be reviewed.

1. To appoint an administrator, the Tribunal must be satisfied that K is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or part of her estate.[9]
2. At law a mental disability includes an intellectual disability.[10]
3. I accept the evidence of Dr T who confirmed that K has an intellectual disability.[11] No one that attended any of the Tribunal hearings expressed a view that K could manage her finances. K's occupational therapist confirmed that K does not have the foundational numeracy skills to count, add, subtract, divide or calculate the cost of items.[12]
4. I am satisfied, and I find, that the presumption of capacity has been set aside in relation to financial matters. K's intellectual disability causes her to be unable to make reasonable judgments about her estate. K is a person for whom I can appoint an administrator.

1. To appoint a guardian for K, I must be satisfied that she is over 18 years of age, the presumption of capacity has been set aside and one or more of the following criteria apply:[13]

(a) she is incapable of looking after her own health and safety;

(b) she is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person; or

(c) she is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety or for the protection of others

1. I am satisfied, and I find, that K is currently incapable of looking after her own health and safety. K needs constant supervision and assistance with all activities of daily living and communication, social participation, community access and transport. She is unable to understand or follow advice from her treating health professionals, seek medical treatment or manage her diabetes independently.[14]
2. I am satisfied, and I find, that K is currently incapable of making reasonable judgments in respect of her person. Her intellectual disability means she is unable to understand the level or type of support she needs. K relies on the guidance of the delegated guardian Ms GU, family and her support team to protect and assist her with her personal affairs.[15]
3. I am satisfied, and I find, that K is in need of oversight, care or control in order to protect her health and safety. K resides in 24/7 supported accommodation as she needs prompting and supervision with all activities.

1. I am satisfied, and I find, that the presumption of capacity has been set aside in relation to personal and financial decisions. K is a person for whom I can appoint a guardian and an administrator.
2. I next turn to explain why I am satisfied that K needs a guardian and administrator.

1. When considering whether K needs a guardian or administrator to be appointed, I must adopt a less restrictive option if possible.[16]
2. I am satisfied that informal arrangements are not appropriate in this case as K requires her decision-maker to have the legal authority to, among other things, manage her NDIS plan, make treatment decisions and decide who she will have contact with. The family conflict means these decisions cannot be made informally. There are also complex matters relating to her estate that require K's administrator to have legal authority and expertise to appropriately protect and assist her.
3. I am satisfied that I need to appoint both a guardian and an administrator. I will next discuss K's views and wishes.

In considering any matter relating to a represented person ... [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.

1. In GS,[17] the Tribunal observed that the requirement to obtain views and wishes is an inquiry to ascertain certain facts. If the Tribunal can obtain the views and wishes of the person concerned, then those views and wishes are to be taken into account by the Tribunal when making a decision.[18]
2. K attended the hearing of 24 February 2026 (February Hearing) and sat in a second, smaller room with the House Manager from her SIL Home, Ms JB. The second room was connected to the main hearing room by video-link. All other parties attending the Hearing, being C, N, the delegated guardian from the Office of the Public Advocate Ms GU and solicitors from the State Solicitor's Office, the Public Advocate and the Public Trustee, sat in the main hearing room.
3. K was assisted by two independent Auslan interpreters, Ms X and Ms Y. The interpreters explained the barriers they faced in communicating with K. Ms X and Ms Y are both 'hearing' interpreters and would usually be assisted by two deaf interpreters when interpreting for a deaf person with an intellectual disability. They warned they may not be able to interpret for K. They also confirmed K knows only limited Auslan.
4. While interpreting for K, the interpreters substituted themselves in and out. They conferred with each other to discuss and agree whether the signs K made had meaning, and if they reached a consensus, they told me what the meaning was. I record the Tribunal's gratitude for Ms X and Ms Y's able assistance.
5. When I moved from the main hearing room to K's room, she looked at me briefly but appeared disinterested in me and what I was doing. As I was talking with Ms JB, K would occasionally ignore the interpreters and look at Ms JB, who she appeared to be familiar and comfortable with.
6. As Ms JB and I spoke, K signed occasionally and would interject when she wanted to comment on something. The interpreters advised that sometimes K was mimicking the signs they were making, so while it appeared she was communicating, there was no meaning behind the signs she made. The interpreters vocalised what K was saying if they recognised the sign, but there were also signs she used of which no one knew the meaning. When I asked K questions, such as if she liked her new SIL Home, she could not answer. The interpreters confirmed she did not understand what they were asking her.
7. However, K was able to communicate to me her view about her relationships with her brothers, who attended the second room to interact with K separately. I observed K's reaction when they each came into the hearing room.

1. K had not seen C for around six months. When he came in, she squeezed his hand and accepted the hug he offered her. She instigated an affectionate game where she held C's chin with her hands so he could make a noise in her ear, which she seemed to enjoy.
2. C attempted to communicate with K by telling her that the hearing was about whether she wanted to come to Sydney with him or whether she wanted to stay here in Western Australia. C put his arms out like an aeroplane when he said Sydney, and K also put her arms out like an aeroplane. The interpreters advised that she was mimicking this gesture.
3. Ms JB explained that K can make a choice or express a preference about what she wants to eat or drink, or what activity she wants to do, by pointing at pictures. At K's SIL Home, there is an array of pictures she can point to when the meals for the week are being planned or when deciding what she will do each day.
4. C agreed that K communicates best with pictures she can point to. He suggested that if we had a picture of her SIL Home and one of his home in Sydney, she would be able to indicate which one she wants.

1. When N walked into the room, K vigorously pointed at the chair next to her to insist he sat next to her. She pushed the chair away from the bar table to make room for him to sit. She appeared animated and used quick gestures, which suggested to me that she was excited.
2. When N sat down, K rolled her chair to sit closer to him. K started using more eye contact with the interpreters, which indicated to me that she was more engaged with the new configuration in the room. K started signing more with the interpreters and looked back and forth from the interpreters to N, which suggested that she wanted to communicate with N with the interpreter's assistance.
3. K regularly touched N's arm and shoulder and she leaned slightly forward to encroach on his personal space. It appeared to me that she was ensuring that he was paying attention to her by being physically close.
4. I saw K use the sign for 'house', then touch N's shoulder and then she made the sign for 'Christmas', to tell everyone she stayed with N at Christmas.
5. Ms JB explained how K's housemates have similar abilities to her and no one has any behavioural difficulties. Ms JB said the SIL Home is very friendly and calm, and the interpreters told me that K agreed the home was 'calm'.
6. As I spoke with N and Ms JB, with the interpreters communicating as best they could with K, she was paying attention and contributing to the conversation when she could understand what we were discussing.

Conclusion in respect of K's ability to express her views and wishes

1. I am satisfied, and I find, that K is unable to express her views and wishes about her estate or personal affairs, or matters such as who she wants to make decisions for her or where she wants to live. Her views and wishes cannot be ascertained because of the interaction of her intellectual disability and communication difficulties.
2. However, K can make choices and indicate her preferences about her day-to-day life. She is supported to do so at the SIL Home with visual choice boards or Auslan supported materials. K's dignity and autonomy are maintained as she is empowered to make decisions, about what she eats and her activities, to maintain as much control as possible over her daily life.
3. I observed K interacting with each of her brothers in a controlled environment with the assistance of two independent Auslan interpreters. While she cannot make many Auslan signs, I saw K communicate non-verbally with her posture, body movements, eye-contact, gestures, touch and proximity.
4. Based on my observations, I am satisfied and I find, that K communicated non-verbally that she is emotionally close to N and shares a strong bond with him. I saw K's demeanour change immediately when she saw him. The behaviour I observed persuaded me that K was excited and engaged. She was not just participating; she was leading the interaction when N was in the room. Her actions conveyed to me that the exchange was interesting and meaningful to K because she was connecting with N.
5. I will take this evidence about K's relationship with N into account when deciding who to appoint as her guardian and administrator.

1. Section 44 of the GA Act sets out the following matters the Tribunal must consider when deciding who to appoint as guardian:

(1) A guardian (including a joint guardian) shall be an individual of or over the age of 18 years who has consented to act and who in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal -

(a) will act in the best interests of the person in respect of whom the application is made;

(b) is not in a position where his interests conflict or may conflict with the interests of that person; and

(c) is otherwise suitable to act as the guardian of that person.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c) the State Administrative Tribunal shall take into account as far as is possible -

(a) the desirability of preserving existing relationships within the family of the person in respect of whom the application is made;

(b) the compatibility of the proposed appointee with that person and with the administrator (if any) of that person's estate;

(c) the wishes of the person in respect of whom the application is made; and

(d) whether the proposed appointee will be able to perform the functions vested in him.

1. Both D and C have nominated themselves to be the guardian. D consents to being appointed as a joint guardian with C. However, C only consents to act as a sole guardian so I will not consider a joint appointment.
2. As D and C have proposed themselves, I am required to make findings about their suitability to act as guardian. If I am unable to find either of them suitable, and as I am satisfied K needs a guardian, I can appoint the Public Advocate as the guardian of last resort if needed.
3. I find that D and C are both over the age of 18 years and have consented to act as the sole guardian.

1. I am unable to find D suitable to act as K's guardian for the following three reasons. First, D is unable to separate her needs and wants from K's best interests. D explained that she misses K and wants to bring K home to live at D's house to keep D company. D's evidence is that she is lonely and she needs K to keep her 'sane'. D does not appreciate the positive changes in K's life since moving to the SIL Home, particularly in relation to her health. I am satisfied that if D was the decision-maker, D would prioritise herself over K.
2. Second, a guardian cannot be in a position where their interests conflict or may conflict with K's interests.[19] D was very open about wanting K to move home because D wants to use K's disability support pension to pay the costs associated with D's home. D also mentioned that she needs access to K's income as her car needs to be repaired and she cannot afford to pay for it by herself.
3. Third, there is significant conflict in the family which indicates to me that D would not be able to communicate effectively with C and N or consult with them about important decisions she would make for K. N and D do not speak, so D moving K home would have a significant impact on K's ability to spend regular time with N. The guardian must act in K's best interests to maintain her supportive relationships and I would be concerned about K's ability to maintain her relationship with N.[20]
4. Neither N nor C support D's appointment as guardian. While D and C are currently getting along, they have previously accused each other of serious criminal acts.[21] By way of example, C has accused D of:

(a) various criminal offences in respect of K, including ongoing emotional neglect, threats and intimidation;[22]

(b) physical neglect as he alleged K was malnourished while in D's care and living in an unhygienic and unsafe home;[23] and

(c) administering to K double or triple doses of her prescribed medication.[24]

1. I do not make a finding about the veracity of these allegations as the purpose of their inclusion is only to demonstrate the significant, historic family conflict.
2. I am therefore unable to find D suitable to be appointed as K's guardian as I am not satisfied D can act solely in K's best interests. There is a clear conflict of interest and I am concerned about the impact on the relationships in K's family if D was appointed at the guardian, particularly K's relationship with N.

1. I am unable to find C suitable to act as K's guardian for three reasons. First, an essential personal attribute of a guardian is their ability to advocate for the represented person and engage cooperatively with others. The guardian must manage disagreements or differences of opinion with a range of third parties, such as service providers and health professionals. The guardian must be able to work within a network of providers to ensure the represented person derives optimal benefit from the services they access.[25]
2. C's evidence at the March Hearing was that he has communicated very effectively with everyone involved in K's care. However, the following examples raise concerns about his interaction with service providers in the recent past.
3. Firstly, in mid-2025, C made numerous allegations in respect of alleged criminal conduct of the delegated guardian including failure to provide necessaries, threats, aggravated assault, failure of duty to report abuse or neglect and misconduct in public office.[26] I am satisfied, based on all the evidence before me and the findings I made in a recent decision,[27] that these allegations are baseless.[28]
4. Secondly, in late 2025, C became aware K had run out of spending money. He first attempted to speak with Ms JB and asked if he could record the conversation. Ms JB said 'no' and suggested he speak with the delegated guardian. The call ended shortly thereafter.
5. Further evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that C has routinely recorded conversations with people involved in K's care from as early as April 2024. By way of example, in submissions filed with the Tribunal, C refers to, among other things, excerpts of transcripts of 26 video recordings made between 28 and 30 December 2024 while K was on holiday with him in Sydney.[29]
6. When recalling his conversation with Ms JB, C emphasised that he was attempting to work constructively with her but she 'fobbed [him] off', implying that Ms JB's refusal to speak to him in a recorded conversation was unreasonable.
7. My opinion is that C was unaware of the detrimental effect of recording telephone calls on his working relationships and the impact on others of making unsubstantiated accusations. I am satisfied, and I find, that C has not engaged constructively with important people involved in K's care, such as the delegated guardian and manager of the SIL Home.
8. Second, I am concerned about C's judgment in two respects. Firstly, C's decision to make repeated applications to the Tribunal in 2025 raises concerns about his ability to effectively advocate for K. C pursued proceedings under s 85 of the GA Act to prove the unsuitability of the Public Advocate and Public Trustee rather than seeking a review of K's orders to propose his own suitability for appointment as K's decision-maker, despite his misunderstanding of the law being explained to him multiple times.[30] I am satisfied that C lacks the judgment necessary to advocate effectively for K in her best interests.
9. Secondly, I am concerned that C lacks the judgment necessary to protect K's emotional safety. When K was about to leave the February Hearing, D arrived at the Tribunal. C suggested that it would be beneficial for K to see her mother as she had not seen D for around a year. However, C did not identify the detrimental emotional impact such a meeting could have had on K and D.
10. Ms JB's evidence was that D had only visited K at her SIL Home once and during that visit, D reportedly presented as angry and was speaking loudly.[31] D made several inappropriate and distressing comments, including stating that she could 'smell death' and claiming K 'will die in March'.[32]
11. I have observed D to be emotionally dysregulated at both hearings I have presided over.[33] I am satisfied that it is more probable than not, based on my observations of D, that she would have become emotionally dysregulated once again and K would have also become upset. At the hearing of 19 March 2025, D became upset which caused K to also become upset.[34] C described K as being in 'deep emotional distress' at that hearing, unlike anything he or D had ever seen.[35]
12. It is possible that C viewed his suggestion for K and D to spend time together as advocating for K to maintain her relationship with her mother. But D's relationships with her children are complex due to how D expresses herself and her fixed view about what is best for K. C is aware of D's tendency towards emotional dysregulation and verbal abuse at the Tribunal, having been harangued by D in earlier hearings.[36]
13. I am concerned that if C had the authority to make decisions about who K would have contact with, K may be exposed to situations that could cause her emotional harm.
14. Third, I am concerned that C would move K to live in Sydney which would severely impact on all K's supportive relationships. There is significant evidence before the Tribunal about the benefits of supported accommodation for K. Ms JB's evidence is that K gets along well with her housemates and lives in a positive and supportive environment, which contributes to K's emotional wellbeing and sense of belonging.[37]
15. Ms O, a Senior Guardian at the Office of the Public Advocate, visited the SIL Home in December 2025. The staff at the SIL Home advised Ms O that K is quite independent, helpful, and is happy to help herself to the things she needs.[38] N described the many positive differences he had noticed in K since living in the SIL Home, including in her physical health and attitude, including how she interacts with her housemates. K has maintained a 30-kilogram weight loss since living at the SIL Home.[39]
16. C has expressed on numerous occasions that he would move K to Sydney to live with him. C gave the following evidence at the first Tribunal hearing he attended:[40]

I propose that [K] moves to Sydney to live with me so that she is far enough removed from the potential daily influence and interference of her mother, where a comprehensive course of progressive learning outcomes can be initiated and explored peacefully and without disruptions in the privacy and comfort of her home with me.

There are many benefits to having [K] move to Sydney with me. The weight of pressure from [D] has been tremendous on [K's] psychological well-being, culminating in [K] lashing out and pushing her mother on many occasions. This weight would be removed. In Sydney, [K] is not so far away that [D] can't visit, but she is far enough away that [D] is not hindering her daily growth.

1. At the February Hearing, C's first attempt at communicating with K in the second room was to explain that the purpose of the hearing was for K to say what she wanted, and whether she wanted to go to Sydney with him or stay in Western Australia.
2. However, at the March Hearing, C stated that he did not plan to move K to Sydney and asserted that he had not previously said that he would. He asked that I 'point' to evidence where he had said he would move K to Sydney. C explained that if he was appointed as K's guardian, she would initially live at the SIL Home while he looked at other options as his intention was for her to live with family or friends.
3. I found C's evidence given at the February and March Hearings to be confusing and contradictory. I formed a strong impression in the March Hearing that C changed the subject to avoid directly answering the question about whether he intended to move K to Sydney if he was the guardian. Despite asking three times, C would not provide me with a definitive answer.
4. I am satisfied, and I find, that C has been unable to work in a cooperative manner with others. Further, I hold serious concerns about C's ability to advocate for K, protect her emotional safety and make decisions in her best interests that will facilitate her important, supportive relationships.

1. A person proposing themselves as the guardian must act in K's best interests and be able to perform the functions vested in them. A guardian appointed for K must be able to communicate effectively with K's family members and service providers. This is crucial in relation to significant personal decisions to be made in relation to her accommodation, services, medical treatment and the contact she has with others.
2. The Tribunal must consider the desirability of preserving the existing relationships in the family. D and C are currently getting along, but if either of them was appointed as K's guardian, because they have different views about what is in K's best interests, it is likely that any decision made will cause conflict between them.
3. K's close bond with N must be protected and maintained. I am satisfied that due to the family conflict, D and C will not be able to consult effectively with N and take his views into account when making important decisions for K, nor will they prioritise K's relationship with N when making decisions about where K will live.
4. Section 44(5) of the GA Act provides that the Public Advocate shall not be appointed unless there is no other person who is suitable and willing to act. As I am unable to find D or C suitable to act, I am satisfied that the only option open to the Tribunal is to reappoint the Public Advocate as K's guardian.

1. Ms GU explained that K attends medical appointments regularly with support workers and needs ongoing assistance to make medical treatment decisions.[41] I accept the evidence of Ms GU.
2. An independent medical treatment guardian, as compared to a family member, will also ensure that all family members were kept updated about K's health and notified about any changes.

1. K requires a guardian to be able to make decisions about accommodation. Ms GU states that while K is settled and happy in her SIL Home, there may be changes in the future, so it is recommended that this authority continue.[42] I accept the evidence of Ms GU.

1. K requires a guardian to continue to make decisions about her services. Ms GU has sought a NDIS plan review and continues to advocate for the supports K requires. Ms GU reports that K currently sees a dietician, her positive behaviour practitioner, occupational therapist and speech pathologist.[43]
2. Ms GU advised that K attends specialised art groups, various community-based activities and swimming lessons.[44] I accept Ms GU's evidence that a services function is required.

1. K requires a guardian to make decisions about who she will have contact with and the extent of that contact. K spends regular time with N, including an occasional stay overnight at his home.
2. C has contact with K via Face Time at a pre-arranged time each week and can visit K at the SIL Home. However, the staff at K's SIL Home have communicated concerns to the delegated guardian about the content of C's conversations with K, such as C trying to influence K's feelings towards other people around her.[45]
3. D has only visited K once, but D can visit K at the SIL Home at any time as long as D contacts the home to ensure that K is there and available to receive visitors. Ms GU's evidence is that due to D's continued statements that she wants K to move back to live with her and D's behaviour when she previously attended the SIL Home, the contact between K and D is supervised.[46] I accept Ms GU's evidence which indicates that a contact function is required.
4. I am satisfied that decisions about future contact need to be made by a guardian to protect K's supportive, meaningful relationships and ensure she can have positive and safe interactions with her family.

1. K has previous travelled to Sydney to spend time with C. K appears to be fond of C and the travel function may be necessary so she can maintain her relationship with him. I will include the travel function so the guardian can consider any future travel proposals.

1. I am satisfied there is a need for a guardian appointed by the Tribunal to make decisions about K's medical treatment, accommodation, services, travel and contact. I am satisfied there is no need for the 'next friend' function to be included in these orders as that function was not previously utilised by the guardian.

1. Section 68 of the GA Act sets out who may be appointed as administrator:

(1) An administrator (including a joint administrator) shall be -

(a) an individual of or over the age of 18 years; or

who has consented to act and who, in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal -

(c) will act in the best interests of the person in respect of whom the application is made; and

(d) is otherwise suitable to act as the administrator of the estate of that person.

...

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the State Administrative Tribunal shall take into account as far as is possible -

(a) the compatibility of the proposed appointee with the person in respect of whom the application is made and with the guardian (if any) of that person;

(c) whether the proposed appointee will be able to perform the functions proposed to be vested in the administrator.

1. D and C both proposed themselves for appointment as K's administrator. I find that they are both over the age of 18 and have consented to act.

1. I am unable to appoint D as K's administrator for three reasons. First, D has been very open about her desire for K to move back in with her so D can use K's pension income to pay her expenses. D justified her intended use of K's income as she has prepared a will that leaves her home to K.
2. This is a conflict of interest as the administrator is required to spend K's funds on K, regardless of what assets she might inherit in the future. D's financial reliance on K means I could not be satisfied that if D was the administrator, she would manage K's estate solely in K's best interests.
3. Second, when D was previously K's administrator, she was unable to properly account for K's funds and comply with the reporting requirements required under the GA Act.[47]
4. Third, D cannot be appointed as the administrator as the investigation by the Public Trustee into whether K has suffered any loss or damage during the period in which D was the administrator has not concluded.[48]
5. I am satisfied that D is not suitable to be appointed as K's administrator as she is unable to act solely in K's best interests or perform the functions vested in the administrator.

1. I am unable to find C suitable to be appointed as the administrator for the following two reasons. First, in terms of the ongoing investigation that involves D, C commented at the February Hearing that if he was the administrator, he did not have to continue the investigation. It appeared to me that he considered the investigation to be optional and I formed an impression that C was reticent to investigate D's conduct as administrator.
2. The investigation is critically necessary to determine the exact circumstances upon which the CBUS Funds were paid to D. In the event CBUS did not have authority to pay the CBUS Funds to D, K may have recourse against CBUS. It is necessary that the investigation be completed by an independent administrator with the necessary expertise to understand the multiple purposes for which the investigation was directed to be undertaken.
3. Second, the administrator must work cooperatively with the guardian.[49] Because I have decided it is necessary to appoint the Public Advocate as guardian, I am satisfied and I find that C would not work cooperatively with the delegated guardian based on C's previous conduct which includes recording telephone conversations and making baseless allegations of neglect or misconduct against the delegated guardian. C also disagrees with decisions made by the guardian, such as K living in the SIL Home, and therefore would not be able to work with the delegated guardian to fund these types of decisions.
4. I am therefore satisfied that I am unable to find C suitable to be appointed as K's administrator. I find he will not be able to perform the functions to be vested in the administrator in K's best interests.

1. I am satisfied, and I find, that it is in K's best interests that the Public Trustee is reappointed as her plenary administrator. K's estate involves some complexity and her administrator must have the knowledge and ability to manage and protect K's estate in the foreseeable future.

1. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that K is unable to make decisions about simple or complex financial matters. The administration order will therefore be a plenary order, which will allow the administrator to deal with all aspects of K's estate in her best interests.
2. I will include a gifting authority of $200 per year so the administrator can purchase gifts on K's behalf. Often the residents of supported accommodation will buy each other small gifts for special occasions. K may also wish to buy her family small gifts.
3. I will include a direction to the Public Trustee in relation to the ongoing investigation.
4. I will also include an authorisation to allow the administrator to liaise with N and share information with him about K's estate. N has not proposed himself for appointment as a decision-maker, but he has demonstrated a consistent ability to act in K's best interests and engage cooperatively with service providers. Ms JB explained that if K needs anything, the staff at the SIL Home contact N and he will provide anything extra that K needs, such as groceries, a new iPad and gift cards to purchase clothes.
5. The Public Trustee is unable to share information without an authority, as information about K's estate must be kept private and confidential.[50] I am satisfied it is in K's best interests for N to be apprised of the outcome of the investigation or any other relevant matters relating to K's estate, as in my opinion, N should be involved in any discussions about K's future needs.

1. The Tribunal is required to fix a period for the review of the order, with the maximum period allowed being five years.[51] Ms GU and N both suggested the orders be reviewed in five years in K's best interests.
2. C proposed that a further review occur in three to six months. He viewed a review as a 'statutory safeguard' to ensure K's safety. C also sought a direction that within seven days, Ms GU file a weekly schedule of K's supports including the provider name, hours, purpose and how communication support is being funded. I decline to make such a direction.
3. The purpose of a periodic review is not to review the conduct of the Public Advocate as guardian and Public Trustee as administrator. C's request in respect of the timing of the review and his demand for information is consistent with his approach to the applications made in 2025 to prove the 'unsuitability' of the Public Advocate and Public Trustee to continue as decision-makers, which was misconceived.[52]
4. I am satisfied it is in K's best interests that the orders appointing the Public Trustee as her administrator and the Public Advocate as her guardian be reviewed in five years' time, for three reasons.
5. First, the evidence is clear that K will always need a guardian and an administrator to make decisions for her. Second, the conflict that currently precludes the appointment of family members is chronic and unlikely to resolve. Third, it is in K's best interests that review hearings occur only as frequently as needed. K incurs costs when the orders are reviewed as her NDIS funds are used to pay her service providers to prepare reports as ordered by the Tribunal and to accompany K to Tribunal hearings.
6. The Tribunal therefore makes the orders set out below.

1. The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [K] is:

(a) unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of her estate;

(c) incapable of looking after her own health and safety;

(d) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person;

(e) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety; and

1. The administration order made on 19 March 2025 is revoked and substituted with the order below.
2. The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the represented person's estate with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
3. The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $200 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.
4. The Public Trustee is directed to investigate whether the represented person's estate has suffered any loss or damage by reason of any action or inaction of any person or organisation from 6 May 2015 to the present.
5. The administrator is authorised to liaise with and share information and documents with [N] in respect of the represented person's estate.
6. The administration order is to be reviewed by 18 March 2031.

1. The guardianship order of 19 March 2025 is revoked and substituted with the order below.
2. The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:

(a) to decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;

(b) to decide with whom the represented person is to live;

(c) to make treatment decisions for the represented person, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA);

(d) to determine what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact;

(e) to determine the services to which the represented person should have access; and

(f) whether the represented person is to travel interstate or overseas and the terms and conditions of such travel.

1. The Tribunal approves delegation by the Public Advocate of her functions as guardian of the represented person to an officer or employee employed in the Office of the Public Advocate.
2. The guardianship order is to be reviewed by 18 March 2031.

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

[1] Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act), s 4(2).

[5] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2) and s 32(4).

[6] Hearings of 22 July 2024, 23 August 2024, 19 March 2025, 19 June 2025, 29 August 2025, 17 November 2025, 19 December 2025, 24 February and 5 March 2026.

[7] K [2025] WASAT 67 and K [2026] WASAT 16.

[11] Document entitled 'Diabetes Management Plan' prepared by Dr T dated 21 April 2025 and filed in GAA 5724 of 2025. Numerous documents filed with the Tribunal discuss the fact that no historic documents exist that confirm when K's hearing impairment and intellectual disability were originally diagnosed.

[12] Functional capacity assessment dated 17 February 2025 prepared by Ms D and filed in GAA 6943 of 2025.

[14] Service provider report prepared by Ms W, positive behaviour support practitioner dated 27 January 2026 (Ms W report).

[17] GS [2018] WASAT 72.

[21] ts 4 - 7, 23 August 2024, ts 14 - 15 and 17, 19 March 2025 and ts 13 - 14, 29 August 2025.

[22] See submissions 'A8.1 6-13 January 2024 - [Suburb] Visit: Gross Neglect & Exploitation Documented' and 'A9.1 Sydney Visit: Coercion, Defamation & Prescription Drug Overdose (28 March - 2 April 2024)' both filed in GAA 2358 of 2025.

[23] See submission 'A8.1 6-13 January 2024 - [Suburb] Visit: Gross Neglect & Exploitation Documented' filed in GAA 2358 of 2025.

[24] See submission 'A9.1 Sydney Visit: Coercion, Defamation & Prescription Drug Overdose (28 March - 2 April 2024)' filed in GAA 2358 of 2025.

[25] GG [2021] WASAT 133 at [97].

[26] See submissions 'C11.2 - [C] Seeks Medical Records & Accountability', 'C12.6 - [Ms GU] Admits She Has No Interpreter Information', 'C19.1 - [C's] Comprehensive Series of Questions' and 'H6. Guardian Misconduct & Failure to Safeguard' filed in GAA 2358 of 2025.

[27] K [2026] WASAT 16.

[28] In various submissions, C referred to sections of a 'Criminal Code' which did not accord with the Criminal Code 1913 (WA).

[29]For example, submissions 'D1.7 Transcript Evidence of Collusion between [L] and [Ms CE]', 'D3.6 - [L] Uses Flatmates as "Witnesses" (2:37 PM, 2:35 min)', 'A9.4 [D] & Her Pills Transcript' and 'C3.3 - [Ms GU's] Recorded Call Approving a One-Week Holiday', referring to a telephone call of 15 November 2024 filed in GAA 2358 of 2025.

[30] K [2026] WASAT 16.

[31] Service provider report of Ms JB dated 13 February 2026 (Ms JB Report).

[33] Hearings of 24 February and 5 March 2026 in GAA 6943 of 2025.

[34] ts 17, 19 March 2025 in GAA 6118 of 2024.

[35] C's request for 'urgent directions' dated 19 August 2025, filed on 19 August 2025 in GAA 3825 of 2025.

[36] ts 4 - 7, 23 August 2024, ts 14 - 15 and 17, 19 March 2025 and ts 13 - 14, 29 August 2025.

[38] Letter of update from the delegated guardian dated 11 February 2026.

[39] Report prepared by the delegated guardian Ms GU dated 21 November 2025 (Guardian's November Report).

[40] ts 5-6, 22 July 2024 in GAA 2640 of 2024.

[47] GA Act, s 80 and Report of the Public Trustee filed 3 February 2026 in GAA 6943 of 2025 (Public Trustee Report)

[52] See K [2026] WASAT 16.