The District Court of Western Australia lacks jurisdiction to order payment from a disabled plaintiff's trust fund to a gratuitous service provider; such orders require the equitable jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. When exercising the discretion, the court must consider the overall benefit to the disabled person (including intangible benefits of continued care and proximity), the need to preserve the trust fund, the public interest in encouraging gratuitous care, and the quality of the relationship. There is no prima facie entitlement to the full Griffiths v Kerkemeyer component; a lesser payment may be appropriate to balance preservation of the fund against recognition of the moral obligation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.