Understanding the Tort of Injurious Falsehood

Injurious falsehood is a unique and distinct tort that protects businesses and individuals from the harmful effects of false statements.

Although often confused with defamation, it is important to recognize the key differences between these two legal concepts.

This blog post is about the nature and elements of the tort of injurious falsehood, drawing upon a recent decision, Jay & Anor v Petrikas & Ors (No 4) [2022] NSWDC 628, and other relevant case law.

Nature and Elements of Injurious Falsehood

According to Gummow J in Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388, the tort of injurious falsehood has four elements:

1. A false statement of or concerning the plaintiff’s goods or business;

2. Publication of that statement by the defendant to a third person;

3. Malice on the part of the defendant; and

4. Proof by the plaintiff of actual damage suffered as a result of the statement.

It is crucial to note the key differences between injurious falsehood and defamation.

While defamation focuses on the protection of personal reputation, injurious falsehood protects proprietary and commercial interests.

As a result, a plaintiff must establish falsity, malice, and special damage in an injurious falsehood claim, unlike in defamation cases.

History and Development

The tort of injurious falsehood has its roots in actions for slander of title, where false statements cast doubt on the plaintiff's ownership of land, preventing them from leasing or selling the property.

This action expanded over time until it reached its modern form, covering falsehoods that cause actual damage when maliciously published.

The tort now includes various types of malicious falsehoods, such as slander of title and slander of goods, although it is not limited to these categories.

Relationship with the tort of deceit

Injurious falsehood shares similarities with the tort of deceit, as both involve false statements causing harm.

However, deceit focuses on false statements made to the plaintiff, while injurious falsehood concerns false statements made about the plaintiff to third parties.

Determining Injurious Falsehood at Trial: Key Questions for Judges

A judge must carefully examine the evidence and make determinations on several critical issues.

Drawing from the case of Jay & Anor v Petrikas & Ors (No 4) [2022] NSWDC 628, the following questions serve as a guide for judges when assessing the merits of an injurious falsehood claim:

1. Representations: The judge must first determine whether each of the publications in question conveyed certain representations. This involves assessing the content of the publications to establish if any false statements were made.

2. Connection to the plaintiff: Next, the judge must decide whether the representation(s) were of and concerning the plaintiffs (or either of them) in connection with their 'business.' This ensures that the false statements made in the publications relate to the plaintiffs and their commercial interests.

3. Falsity: If the representation(s) concern the plaintiffs and their business, the judge must then establish whether the representations were false. This step requires evaluating the truthfulness of the statements made in the publications.

4. Malice: If the representations are found to be false, the judge must determine whether the defendants published the publications (attributed to them) with malice. This involves examining the defendants' intentions and motives when making the false statements.

5. Actual damage: The judge must then decide whether the plaintiffs (or either of them) suffered actual damage as a result of the publications. This step requires an assessment of the harm caused to the plaintiffs' business or commercial interests due to the false statements.

6. Quantum of damages and additional awards: Finally, if actual damage is established, the judge must determine:

   1. The quantum of actual damage, which refers to the monetary value of the harm caused to the plaintiffs;

   2. Whether the plaintiffs (or either of them) are entitled to aggravated damages and/or exemplary damages. If they are, the judge must determine the quantum of either or both of such awards. Aggravated damages compensate for additional harm caused by the defendant's conduct, while exemplary damages serve to punish the defendant and deter similar behaviour in the future.

Key take-aways

• The tort of injurious falsehood is a distinct and important area of law that protects businesses and individuals from the damaging effects of false statements.

• Its unique elements and historical development set it apart from defamation.

Cases referred to in this blog post:

• Jay & Anor v Petrikas & Ors (No 4) [2022] NSWDC 628

• Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388

The Grapevine Effect and Defamation in the Age of Social Media

The 'grapevine effect' is a concept that has gained significant importance in defamation law, particularly with the rapid rise of social media.

This term is used to describe how defamatory material may be repeated or republished to others, causing damage to a much wider audience than initially intended.

In this blog post, I discuss the grapevine effect in the context of defamation law and examine some recent cases that have dealt with this issue.

The Grapevine Effect Explained

As noted in the recent case of Hockings v Lynch & Adams [2022] QDC 127, the grapevine effect has been used as a metaphor to help explain the basis on which general damages may be recovered in defamation actions.

The real damage caused by defamatory material cannot be ascertained and established, as it is impossible to track the scandal or determine the extent to which the poison may reach.

The grapevine effect provides a means by which a court may conclude that a given result was "natural and probable," depending on factors such as the nature of the false statement and the circumstances of its publication.

However, the grapevine effect does not operate in all cases, and republication is not always the "natural and probable" result of the original publication.

The Grapevine Effect and Social Media

The grapevine effect is particularly relevant in the context of social media, where defamatory material can spread rapidly and might emerge from its hiding place at some future date.

As observed in Hockings v Lynch & Adams, courts must be conscious that an award of damages needs to be sufficient to convince a bystander, who later learns of a slur through the grapevine, of the baselessness of the charge.

Case Examples

In O'Reilly v Edgar, the court accepted evidence that at least 1,000 members of the public group had downloaded and read defamatory posts, providing the foundation for a finding of wide publication.

In contrast, the case of Bolton v Stoltenberg relied on evidence of the 'reach' of a website in question and 'likes, comments, and shares' of defamatory posts, which the court used to infer that the material had been downloaded and read by a significant number of people.

Hockings v Lynch & Adams: A Closer Look

In Hockings v Lynch & Adams, the court found that in respect of certain occasions, posts were published beyond the admitted scope of publication due to factors such as the number of members in relevant Facebook groups and the overlap between groups.

However, the court also found that in other instances, publication was no greater than to those who were friends or followers of the pages in question.

Key take-aways

• The grapevine effect has significant implications in defamation law, especially in the context of social media.

• Courts must carefully consider the nature and extent of publication and republication in determining damages.

• As social media continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see how courts adapt to the changing landscape and deal with the grapevine effect in future cases.

Cases

In the blog post above, the following cases are mentioned:

1. Hockings v Lynch & Adams [2022] QDC 127

2. O'Reilly v Edgar [2019] NSWDC 374

3. Bolton v Stoltenberg [2018] NSWSC 1518

Understanding the concept of 'Vulgar Abuse' in defamation

With the proliferation of online communications and social media, the distinction between mere vulgar abuse and defamation has become increasingly important.

This blog post explores the concept of ‘vulgar abuse’ and the challenges that arise when assessing whether language damages a person's reputation.

The Concept of Vulgar Abuse

Vulgar abuse refers to language that is insulting or offensive but does not necessarily amount to defamation.

In order to distinguish between mere vulgar abuse and defamatory language, the context in which the terms are used must be considered, as well as the potential meanings conveyed by the language.

It is important to note that mere vulgar abuse, while offensive, does not inherently convey false statements that injure an individual's reputation.

Why Mere Vulgar Abuse is Not Defamatory

The primary reason mere vulgar abuse is not considered defamatory lies in its inability to cause significant harm to an individual's reputation.

While vulgar abuse may be offensive and hurtful, it often does not involve false statements about a person or their character.

Defamation, on the other hand, necessitates the communication of false information that damages a person's reputation in the eyes of others.

Moreover, vulgar abuse is often recognized as a form of emotional expression, rather than an assertion of fact.

For instance, the use of swear words or derogatory language may simply reflect the speaker's frustration or anger, rather than representing a meaningful claim about the targeted individual.

This emotional context can limit the extent to which vulgar abuse impacts a person's reputation, as right-thinking members of society may recognise it as an expression of emotion rather than a factual statement.

Challenges in Assessing Damage to Reputation

One of the main challenges in distinguishing between mere vulgar abuse and defamation is determining whether the language used has the potential to damage a person's reputation.

This can be particularly difficult in the context of social media and online communications, where the use of vulgar language and insults has become increasingly common.

The basic concepts are that:

• In order to assess whether language is defamatory or merely vulgar abuse, courts must carefully examine the context in which the words are used and the potential meanings that may arise.

• The presence of swear words or derogatory terms does not automatically preclude the possibility of defamation, as demonstrated in cases like McGuiness v J T Publishing Australia Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 471 and Aldridge v Johnston [2020] SASCFC 31.

• However, when offensive language is used without an accompanying false statement, it is less likely to be considered defamatory.

• As Spencer J explained in Ralston v Fomich (1992) 66 BCLR (2d) 166 at 169, certain words may not be capable of defamatory meaning without a qualifying statement or context.

Key takeaways

• While mere vulgar abuse may be offensive and hurtful, it is not considered defamatory due to its inability to cause significant harm to a person's reputation and its nature as an emotional expression rather than an assertion of fact.

• Assessing whether language is defamatory or simply mere vulgar abuse can be challenging, particularly in the context of social media and online communications. To make this determination, courts and legal professionals must carefully consider the context of the language used and the potential meanings that may arise.

Online defamation by 'Keyboard Warriors'

Social media and online platforms given rise to a breed of online troublemakers known as "keyboard warriors."

As a defamation lawyer, I witness firsthand the impact these individuals can have on my clients' reputations and businesses.

In this blog post, I explore the phenomenon of keyboard warriors, their motivations, and the potential consequences of their actions.

I. Defining Keyboard Warriors

A keyboard warrior is an individual who aggressively and passionately expresses their opinions, beliefs, or arguments online, typically through social media, forums, or other digital platforms, but avoids or refrains from engaging in face-to-face discussions or real-life confrontations.

These individuals are often perceived as overly confrontational, argumentative, and critical, hiding behind the anonymity and safety that the internet provides.

They might engage in trolling, cyberbullying, or other disruptive online behaviors, with little regard for the feelings or opinions of others.

II. Why Do People Become Keyboard Warriors?

There are various reasons why someone might become a keyboard warrior.

Some of these reasons include:

1. Anonymity: The internet provides a sense of anonymity, which emboldens some people to express their opinions more aggressively than they would in a face-to-face setting.

2. Emotional venting: Some individuals may use online platforms as a way to vent their emotions and frustrations, making them more confrontational in digital spaces.

3. Social validation: The desire for likes, shares, and other forms of social validation can prompt people to be more vocal and aggressive in their online opinions.

4. Lack of social skills: Some individuals may lack the social skills necessary for effective face-to-face communication, causing them to feel more comfortable expressing themselves online.

5. Insecurity: People who feel insecure about their opinions or knowledge might use the internet as a platform to assert themselves, compensating for their perceived shortcomings.

6. Disinhibition effect: Online communication often lacks the social cues and context that exist in face-to-face interactions, leading to a reduced sense of responsibility and increased impulsivity.

7. Echo chambers: People often surround themselves with like-minded individuals online, which can reinforce their beliefs and encourage aggressive behavior towards those who disagree.

8. Activism: Some people may become keyboard warriors to promote a cause, spread awareness, or influence public opinion.

9. Boredom or entertainment: For some, engaging in online arguments can be a source of entertainment or a way to pass the time.

10. Power dynamics: The internet allows people to feel a sense of power and control over their interactions, which may lead them to be more confrontational.

Understanding the motivations behind keyboard warriors can help businesses and individuals better manage and respond to their actions.

III. The Consequences of Keyboard Warriors on Reputation and Business

The impact of keyboard warriors can be far-reaching and damaging to businesses and individuals alike.

Defamatory statements posted online can spread quickly, leading to financial loss, harm to personal and professional relationships, and damage to reputations that may take years to recover from.

Furthermore, legal remedies can be costly and time-consuming, and even when successful, they may not fully repair the damage done.

Key Take-Aways

• Keyboard warriors are individuals who aggressively express their opinions online but avoid face-to-face confrontations.

• The motivations for becoming a keyboard warrior can range from anonymity and emotional venting to activism and boredom.

• Defamatory statements made by keyboard warriors can cause significant harm to businesses and individuals, both financially and reputation-wise.

• Understanding the motivations behind keyboard warriors can help in developing effective strategies to manage and respond to their actions.

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.

Memory Impairments and the Appointment of an Administrator in Western Australia

Memory impairments can significantly impact a person's ability to make reasonable judgments about their financial affairs.

In this blog post, I discuss how memory impairments can be a basis for the appointment of an administrator by the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia, as outlined in the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (GA Act).

Mental Disability and Estate Management

Under section 64(1)(a) of the GA Act, a person may be considered unable to make reasonable judgments about their estate due to a mental disability.

The term "estate" refers to the aggregate of a person's property, assets, and liabilities, which in practice encompasses their real and personal property and financial affairs.

The State Administrative Tribunal must determine whether the individual has the ability to make reasonable judgments about their estate (a subjective test) and whether they have the ability to engage in the mental processes required to make that judgment (an objective test).

Both tests must be satisfied for the Tribunal to appoint an administrator.

Memory Impairments and Decision-Making

Memory impairments, such as issues with short-term memory retention, can hinder an individual's ability to weigh the pros and cons of financial decisions.

This may lead to impulsive behavior and poor financial management, such as overspending, failing to budget, or making unreasonable demands on their funds.

However, it is important to note that not all individuals with memory impairments or mental disabilities will require an administrator. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the person's inability to make reasonable judgments about their estate is caused by their mental disability (a causal link) before they can appoint an administrator.

Case Example

In a recent case, VD [2023] WASAT 19, the State Administrative Tribunal found that a person with an acquired brain injury, which caused impulsivity, difficulties with executive functioning, and retention of information in short-term memory, was unable to make reasonable judgments about their estate.

The individual frequently overspent, failed to budget, and made unreasonable demands on their funds.

The Tribunal concluded that the acquired brain injury was the reason for their inability to manage their estate, and the requirements of section 64(1)(a) of the GA Act were met, resulting in the appointment of an administrator.

Conclusion

Memory impairments can have a significant impact on an individual's ability to manage their financial affairs.

In cases where a mental disability leads to an inability to make reasonable judgments about one's estate, the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia may appoint an administrator to protect the individual's best interests.

If you or a loved one are facing challenges in managing an estate due to memory impairments, please feel welcome to consult with me as a qualified guardianship lawyer, to explore your options. You can contact me here.

Acquired Brain Injury and Legal Safeguards: The Role of Guardians and Administrators in Supporting Affected Individuals

As a guardianship lawyer with experience appearing in hearings before the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia, I often encounter cases involving individuals with acquired brain injuries (ABIs).

The impact of these injuries can be profound. often leading to impulsivity and, therefore, vulnerability to exploitation.

In this blog post, I describe what an ABI is, its causes, the link between ABI and impulsivity, and why this can justify the need for a guardian and/or administrator.

What is an Acquired Brain Injury?

An acquired brain injury (ABI) is damage to the brain that occurs after birth and is not related to a congenital disorder, developmental disability, or progressive degenerative disease.

ABIs can result in cognitive, emotional, and physical impairments that can vary widely in severity, depending on the extent and location of the brain damage.

Causes of Acquired Brain Injuries

There are many possible causes of an ABI, including:

1. Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) – resulting from events such as falls, motor vehicle accidents, sports injuries, and violence.

2. Non-traumatic brain injuries – caused by medical conditions such as stroke, brain tumors, infections (e.g., meningitis or encephalitis), hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain), and exposure to toxic substances.

Impulsivity and Other Symptoms of ABI

Impulsivity is a common symptom of ABI and can manifest in various ways, such as:

1. Difficulty with impulse control: Individuals with ABI may struggle to resist urges, make hasty decisions without considering the consequences, or act inappropriately in social situations.

2. Emotional dysregulation: Mood swings, irritability, and emotional outbursts may be more frequent for those with ABI.

3. Cognitive impairments: ABI can lead to problems with memory, attention, planning, and problem-solving.

Why ABI Can Justify a Guardian and/or Administrator

Individuals with ABI, particularly those exhibiting impulsivity and other cognitive or emotional impairments, can be at increased risk of exploitation and may struggle to manage their personal, medical, or financial affairs effectively.

In these situations, the appointment of a guardian and/or administrator may be necessary to protect the individual's best interests and ensure their wellbeing.

A guardian is a person appointed by the State Administrative Tribunal to make personal and lifestyle decisions on behalf of an individual with a mental disability. An administrator, on the other hand, is appointed to manage the individual's financial and legal affairs.

Both roles aim to provide support and protection to the individual, while considering their wishes and needs to the greatest extent possible.

Acquired brain injuries can have a significant impact on an individual's ability to make sound decisions and protect themselves from potential exploitation.

By understanding the link between ABI and impulsivity, we can better recognize when a guardian and/or administrator may be necessary to safeguard the best interests of those affected.

If you or a loved one has experienced an ABI and requires legal assistance, please contact me, if you need to speak with a guardianship lawyer with experience in the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia for guidance and support.

Navigating the Legal Framework for Your Adult Child with Autism: A Guide to Guardianship and Administration in Western Australia

In this blog post, I focus on the practical issues that parents of adult children with autism in Western Australia may face and explore the types of situations that make it sensible to apply for guardianship and administration. This is particularly important when considering factors such as parents no longer being together.

In Western Australia, guardianship and administration are governed by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990. Guardianship pertains to making personal, lifestyle, and medical decisions, while administration deals with financial and property management.

When considering applying for guardianship and administration for an adult child with autism, parents should evaluate the following situations:

1. The adult child lacks the capacity to make informed decisions: If the adult child with autism has significant challenges in understanding and processing information, and consequently cannot make informed decisions, guardianship and administration may be necessary.

2. The parents are no longer together: If the parents have separated or divorced, they may have different views on their adult child's care and decision-making. Guardianship and administration can provide a clear legal framework for decision-making and ensure that the best interests of the adult child are prioritized.

3. Potential for abuse, neglect, or exploitation: If there is a risk that the adult child with autism may be subject to abuse, neglect, or exploitation, either by family members or others, guardianship and administration can provide a layer of protection and oversight to prevent such occurrences.

4. Healthcare and medical treatment: If the adult child requires complex or ongoing medical treatment, guardianship can ensure that appropriate decisions are made regarding their healthcare needs.

5. Financial management: If the adult child with autism has substantial assets or receives a substantial income (e.g., from government benefits or an inheritance), administration may be necessary to ensure proper management and prevent financial mismanagement or exploitation.

6. Residential arrangements: If the adult child requires specialized living arrangements, such as supported accommodation or a group home, guardianship can help in making decisions about the most suitable option, taking into account the adult child's preferences, needs, and available resources.

7. Future planning: Guardianship and administration can provide a framework for planning the adult child's future, including their living arrangements, healthcare, and financial management, particularly in situations where the parents are aging or have health issues of their own.

Before applying for guardianship and administration, parents should consider alternatives that may be less restrictive and provide more autonomy to their adult child with autism. These alternatives include ‘supported decision-making’.

In conclusion, parents of adult children with autism in Western Australia should carefully consider the specific circumstances of their situation when deciding whether to apply for guardianship and administration. By assessing the individual needs, challenges, and preferences of their adult child, parents can make informed decisions that promote their loved one's well-being, autonomy, and protection.

Understanding Bipolar Disorder: Symptoms and Impact on Daily Life

Bipolar affective disorder, also known as bipolar disorder or manic-depressive illness, is a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings.

People with bipolar disorder experience episodes of depression, where they feel low, sad, hopeless, and lose interest in things they usually enjoy. They also experience episodes of mania or hypomania, where they feel high, euphoric, irritable, restless, and have increased energy and activity. Sometimes, they may also have psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations or delusions.

Bipolar disorder can affect a person's ability to function in daily life, as well as their relationships, work, and finances. It can also increase the risk of suicide and other health problems.

Bipolar disorder is a lifelong condition that requires ongoing treatment and support.

The exact causes of bipolar disorder are not fully understood, but it is thought to involve a combination of genetic, biological, environmental, and psychological factors.

As a guardianship lawyer, I often encounter cases where a person with bipolar disorder needs legal protection or representation.

Guardianship is a legal process where the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia appoints someone to make decisions for another person who is unable to do so because of mental incapacity.

A guardian can be appointed to make decisions about personal matters, such as medical treatment, accommodation, services and other lifestyle matters. An administrator can also be appointed to make decisions about financial matters, such as managing property, income, and expenses.

Guardianship can be a helpful tool to protect the rights and interests of a person with bipolar disorder who is unable to make informed decisions for themselves.

However, guardianship also involves a loss of autonomy and privacy for the person under guardianship.

Therefore, guardianship should only be considered as a last resort when there are no less restrictive alternatives available.

If you or someone you know has bipolar disorder and needs legal assistance or advice regarding guardianship or other related issues, please contact me.

I am an experienced guardianship lawyer who can help you navigate the complex and sensitive legal process.