As my career progressed, I became a specialist in 3 fields:
1. defamation
2. guardianship in SAT, and
3. costs.
It was like gravity pulled me towards these 3 over 19 years as a lawyer, after also trying other things.
Hiring a specialist lawyer brings numerous benefits.
Here are a few:
Expertise: A specialist lawyer has in-depth knowledge and experience in a specific area of law. This means that they are better equipped to handle complex legal issues and provide accurate advice.
Efficiency: Because a specialist lawyer focuses on a specific area of law, they are likely to have a better understanding of the relevant laws and regulations, as well as the specific processes and procedures involved. This can lead to a more efficient resolution of your legal matter.
Cost-effectiveness: While it may seem counterintuitive, hiring a specialist lawyer can often be more cost-effective in the long run. Because they have a deeper understanding of the relevant laws and processes, they may be able to resolve your legal matter more quickly and efficiently, saving you time and money.
Personalized service: A specialist lawyer is likely to have a better understanding of your unique needs and concerns, and will be able to provide more tailored and personalized legal representation.
Overall, hiring a specialist lawyer can bring a level of expertise and efficiency to your legal matters that a generalist lawyer may not be able to provide. While it may cost more upfront to hire a specialist, the benefits can far outweigh the costs in the long run.
Guardianship Specialty: Protecting Loved Ones with Dementia
One of my 3 specialities is GUARDIANSHIP.
I often encounter clients who are seeking guardianship for loved ones suffering from dementia.
Dementia refers to a decline in cognitive function, which includes memory, language, problem-solving, and decision-making abilities. It can be caused by various conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, stroke, or brain injury.
In the context of guardianship applications, the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia considers whether an individual has dementia when determining whether they are capable of making decisions about their own care and welfare.
If the Tribunal determines that an individual lacks capacity due to dementia, a guardian may be appointed to make decisions on their behalf.
Dementia is a progressive condition, meaning it will get worse over time. As such, it's important to plan for the future and ensure that appropriate guardianship arrangements are in place to ensure the best possible care for loved ones suffering from dementia.
If you or someone you know is seeking guardianship for a loved one suffering from dementia, don't hesitate to reach out. I've dealt with 100s of these matters over the years and offer a comprehensive service.
Junior Lawyer Position Available at Boutique Law Practice
Attention all junior lawyers! Our Law Practice is currently seeking to fill a junior lawyer role due to a high demand for our cost-effective and efficient legal services. As a boutique Law Practice with niche practice areas, including defamation, guardianship, and legal cost disputes, we are in need of talented lawyers to join our ever-growing team.
Our director, who has over 18 years of experience as a lawyer and 15 years as the principal of a law practice, is a specialist in defamation, guardianship, and legal costs. He is also an author and has high-tech knowledge and skills, making him keen to implement world-leading IT solutions to improve efficiency and productivity. At our Law Practice, we pride ourselves on thinking ahead of the curve and creating a better work-life balance than at traditional law firms.
We offer above market rate salaries and flexible work arrangements, including the option to work from home or on a hybrid basis. We are looking for candidates who are confident, capable, and have more than 2 years of PAE, as well as relevant experience and a willingness to embrace new technology. If you are skilled at drafting documents and legal analysis, we encourage you to apply. All applications will be kept in the strictest confidence.
Join our team and gain specialist experience in niche areas of law while enjoying the benefits of our cutting-edge technology and flexible work arrangements. Send us your resume today and let's have a discussion!
Protecting Individuals with Dementia from Financial Abuse
Dementia can have a significant impact on financial decision making, including:
- Struggling to understand financial concepts
- Difficulty remembering important financial information
- Inability to manage money effectively
These challenges can lead to financial abuse and exploitation, as well as financial instability for the individual and their family.
To protect individuals with dementia, the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) offers administration orders. These orders appoint a guardian or administrator to manage the financial affairs of an individual with dementia and provide necessary support and oversight.
It is important to note that administration orders should be considered as a last resort, as they do limit an individual's autonomy and decision-making capacity. However, in cases where an individual with dementia is at risk of financial abuse or is unable to manage their own finances, an administration order can provide much-needed protection and support.
As a specialist in guardianship and administration in the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia, I have acted in 30 different cases related to this area of law in 2022 (and counting).
With an ageing population, families may become more aware of the financial exploitation risks associated with dementia during times like the Christmas season.
If you or a loved one are dealing with dementia and financial decision making, I am here to help. I offer a comprehensive service and deeply care about the needs of my clients when they apply for guardianship and administration orders over family members. Do not hesitate to reach out for assistance.
New Technology for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease
As a lawyer who works on guardianship applications in the State Administrative Tribunal of WA every day, I spend much of my time reading medical reports.
These are relied on by the Tribunal to whether the presumption of capacity is rebutted in an individual case.
Will be intriguing to see this new technology for diagnosing Alzheimer’s in action.
Hopefully it brings more certainty, when it comes to determining if (and crucially, when) there is a need for a guardianship order to be made after a family member begins displaying symptoms.
Click here to read the full article.
Increase in Guardianship Applications at the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia
As a lawyer who practices in guardianship at the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT), I see first-hand the important role guardianship plays in protecting the rights and interests of individuals who are unable to make decisions for themselves due to disability, illness, or injury.
According to data from the SAT's annual reports, the number of guardianship applications lodged with the SAT has significantly increased over the past 5 years.
Here's a breakdown of the number of guardianship applications received by the SAT each year:
Year | Number of Guardianship applications
2018 - 3,864
2019 - 3,938
2020 - 4,903
2021 - 5,061
2022 - 5,602
There has been an overall 45.97% increase in guardianship applications between 2018 and 2022.
If you or someone you know is in need of guardianship assistance, I highly recommend looking at the SAT's website for information and support. The SAT website has a wealth of resources to help navigate the process.
If you would like to hire a lawyer to act on your behalf in a guardianship matter, please don't hesitate to contact me. I would be happy to discuss your options and how I can assist you.
I acted in 30 separate such matters in 2022 alone and offer a specialist service.
Role of Public Advocate at guardianship hearings
The Public Advocate of Western Australia has an important role when it comes to attending and preparing reports for guardianship hearings.
The Public Advocate has a wide range of powers and functions, including investigating complaints about guardianship arrangements, providing advice to the Minister for Disability Services on guardianship matters, and promoting awareness of guardianship issues.
The Office of the Public Advocate also provides support and advice to guardians and interested persons on guardianship matters.
Often, the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia will make an order for the Public Advocate to do an investigation and prepare a report in advance of a guardianship hearing.
Typically, the specific orders made by the Tribunal include:
The application is referred to the Public Advocate pursuant to s 97(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) for investigation and report to the Tribunal prior to the hearing on the following: (a) whether the proposed represented person is in need of an administrator; (b) if an administration order is to be made, who would be suitable and willing to be appointed; (c) what are the views and wishes of the proposed represented person regarding the issues arising in this proceeding; and (d) all other matters the Public Advocate considers relevant.
The Public Advocate is requested to attend the hearing to advance the best interests of the proposed represented person.
The Tribunal will provide to the Public Advocate a copy of all documents received by the Tribunal for the purposes of this proceeding.
The Public Advocate is at liberty to apply pursuant to s 35 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) for orders for the production of documents relevant to her investigation.
The Public Advocate is at liberty to apply for the hearing to be brought forward to an earlier date should this be considered necessary in the best interests of the proposed represented person.
On behalf of my clients, when this occurs, I liaise with staff at the Office of the Public Advocate in the lead-up to the hearing.
Yemini v Twitter International Co
The Federal Court of Australia has handed down a useful and important ruling in the case of Yemini v Twitter International Company.
The written reasons are short, but are likely to have a long-lasting impact on running defamation cases against social media platforms.
Avraham Yemini is an Australian-based journalist for the Canadian news and opinion website, Rebel News.
He filed an originating application seeking an order under r 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for preliminary discovery by Twitter International Company and Twitter Inc, the corporate entities through which the American microblogging and social networking service ‘Twitter’ is principally operated.
Mr Yemini sought production of documents that would help him identify an anonymous person or persons who published allegedly defamatory content about Mr Yemini on the Twitter platform, so that he could then commence proceedings against that person or persons.
The Twitter handle was @PRGuy17.
The evidence supporting Mr Yemini’s application set out the bases on which he believed that one or both of the Twitter entities had information about the identity of the anonymous Twitter user and the attempts Mr Yemini had made to identify the anonymous user to date.
The application for preliminary discovery, under r 7.22 of the Rules, was based on a cause of action in defamation.
An application for preliminary discovery under r 7.22 of the Rules is a proceeding in which the Federal Court of Australia has jurisdiction.
On the basis of the affidavit filed in support of the application for preliminary discovery, the Judge was satisfied Mr Yemini had a prima facie case for the production of the documents he sought.
An order granting leave for Mr Yemini to effect service on the prospective respondents via international registered post was made.
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller was a case decided by the High Court in 2021.
The case concerned whether or not a newspaper publisher could be liable for defamation where the article complained of was published on an online platform that was later taken down.
The court held that, where an article is published on an online platform and then taken down, the publisher may still be liable for defamation if it can be shown that they knew or ought to have known that the article would be accessible to readers in Australia.
This is because, even though the article is no longer available on the original platform, it may still be accessible to readers through other means (e.g. through search engines).
This decision has important implications for media organisations that publish content online, as it means that they need to be careful about what they publish and take prompt action to remove anything that could be defamatory.
It also highlights the importance of ensuring that articles are not published on platforms where they can be easily copied and distributed (e.g. social media).
This case serves as a reminder that defamation law still applies to content published online, even if it is later taken down. Media organisations need to be aware of this and take care to avoid publishing anything that could be defamatory.
Malice and qualified privilege
Malice defeats the defence of qualified privilege in Australia. If a person can prove a defendant acted without malice, then they will be protected from defamation proceedings.
The law of qualified privilege in Australia is designed to protect people who make statements about others in certain situations.
This may include situations where the person making the statement is required to do so by their job, or where the statement is made in order to protect the interests of another person.
In order for the defence of statutory qualified privilege to apply, the Uniform Defamation Acts provide that the following elements must be present:
the recipient has an interest or apparent interest in having information on some subject;
the matter is published to the recipient in the course of giving him or her information on that subject;
the conduct of the defendant in publishing the material in question is reasonable in the circumstances.
However, common law qualified privilege is more commonly relied on than the statutory defence in Australia. It is the most common defence in Australia in defamation.
At common law, a publication is made on a privileged occasion if:
it is made without malice;
it is made by a person in discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal, social or moral or for the purpose of protecting some private interest;
it is made to a person who has a corresponding interest in receiving the communication.
If these elements are present, then the person making the statement will likely be protected from defamation proceedings.
Qualified privilege is not an absolute defence, however, and there are some situations where it may not apply.
For example, if the person making the statement knows that it is false, or if the statement is made with the intention of causing harm to the person it is about, then qualified privilege may not apply.
Qualified privilege is a complex area of law, and it is always advisable to seek legal advice before making any statements about others that could potentially be defamatory.