Introduction

In guardianship and administration proceedings, confidentiality is the norm rather than the exception. However, a recent Western Australian Supreme Court decision has clarified when exceptions to this confidentiality may be permitted. In Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Public Trustee [2022] WASC 85, the ABC sought court approval to identify a deceased person (referred to as "AC") and their adult children in a Four Corners report about public trustee systems. AC had been subject to guardianship and administration orders made in 2015, with AC's daughter appointed as guardian and the Public Trustee as administrator of financial affairs. AC died in September 2016, and AC's adult children consented to being identified in the report.

The Confidentiality Framework

The Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) ("the Act") imposes strict confidentiality requirements on proceedings under the Act. These requirements are found in Schedule 1, clause 12, which makes it an offense to publish an account of proceedings that identifies parties, persons related to parties, or witnesses.

As Justice Hill noted in the ABC case, these confidentiality provisions do not prevent reporting of proceedings generally, but simply prevent identification of the persons involved. This contrasts with the principle of "open justice" that normally applies in court proceedings.

The rationale for confidentiality was well articulated by Justice Pritchard in CD [2020] WASAT 41, explaining that the provisions reinforce two important policies:

Protection of the privacy of persons involved in proceedings, particularly the represented person
The public interest in the integrity of the Tribunal's processes, which relies on obtaining sensitive information from various sources

Exceptions to Confidentiality

Schedule 1, clause 12(8) of the Act provides several exceptions to these strict confidentiality obligations. Of particular interest is clause 12(8)(d), which permits "the publishing of a notice or report in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal or of a court."

The ABC case is significant because it clarifies the scope of the court's discretion under this provision. Justice Hill concluded that clause 12(8)(d) confers a broad discretion on the court to direct publication of a notice or report by taking into account all relevant facts, matters, and circumstances.

Importantly, Justice Hill rejected the view that "exceptional circumstances" are required before an order allowing identification can be made. Instead, the court should consider all logically relevant factors without imposing constraints not found in the express terms of the Act.

Factors the Court Considers

Drawing on decisions in family law cases interpreting similar provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and Family Court Act 1997 (WA), Justice Hill identified several factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion:

The public interest in the publication
The public interest in personal privacy
Freedom of communication
The position (if known) of the person who is the subject of the application
Whether there is any opposition to the application
Whether the publication is in the best interests of the person who was subject to the orders
Whether the person consents to the application
Whether the welfare of the person will improve or suffer if publication is allowed
How publication will impact on relevant relationships

In AH v SS (2005) 194 FLR 111, Chief Justice Bryant expressed the view that, in considering whether to make a direction for publication, the applicant must identify reasons for publication, and the court should consider both public interest and the best interests of the party subject to the application.

The Court's Approach in Practice

In the ABC case, Justice Hill granted the application, subject to the ABC giving an undertaking not to disclose medical or other personal information beyond what was necessary for a fair and accurate report.

Several factors influenced this decision:

The orders were made more than five years earlier and were no longer operative due to AC's death
AC's children actively supported the application and consented to being identified
No one appeared to object to the application
There was public interest in understanding how the Public Trustee interacts with community members, particularly those from multicultural backgrounds
There was public interest in understanding the operation of the Act and the role of the Public Trustee

Implications for Practice

This decision provides valuable guidance for practitioners in this area:

Applications for publication should address the factors identified by Justice Hill, particularly the public interest in publication and the position of the affected person
Consent of relevant parties, while not determinative, is a significant factor
The death of the represented person may simplify matters, but doesn't automatically justify publication
The court will balance privacy interests against the value of transparency in particular circumstances
Restrictions may be imposed to protect particularly sensitive information even when publication is generally permitted

The decision in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Public Trustee [2022] WASC 85 strikes a balance between the competing principles of privacy and open justice. It recognizes that while confidentiality remains the default position in guardianship proceedings, there are circumstances where transparency serves both individual and public interests.

For practitioners advising clients on these matters, the case underscores the importance of considering all relevant factors when seeking (or opposing) publication of information from guardianship proceedings, rather than focusing solely on whether "exceptional circumstances" exist.