Adams v Guardianship Board - [2008] SADC 159

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
ADAMS v GUARDIANSHIP BOARD
[2008] SADC 159
Judgment of His Honour Judge Clayton, Assessor Dr J Gipslis and Assessor Miss L English
24 November 2008
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY DIVISION - APPEAL FROM GUARDIANSHIP BOARD
Appeal against Community Treatment Order on grounds that Guardianship Board had failed to provide reasons for decision.
HELD: Ex tempore oral reasons which are recorded in the transcript of proceedings are sufficient to satisfy the obligation in subs 14(13) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993. In ascertaining the reasons of the Board it is appropriate to have regard to the transcript of the hearing.
District Court Act 1981 s 42 E; Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 s 14; Mental Health Act 1993 s 20, referred to.
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273; Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Leases Tribunal (1996) 2 Qd R 462; R v North ex Parte Oakey (1927) 1 KB 491; Padfield v Minister for Agriculture (1968) AC 997; Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade (1977) QB 643 at 707; FAI insurances Ltd v Winneke; Fire and All Risks Insurance Co Ltd v Winneke (1981) 151 CLR 342 HCA, considered.

ADAMS v GUARDIANSHIP BOARD
[2008] SADC 159

On 25 May 2008 the Guardianship Board made a Community Treatment Order in respect of Mrs Adams. The order was for six months which expires on 25 November 2008. At the time the appeal was argued the order had 11 days to run.
A Notice of Appeal was lodged on 4 June 2008. The grounds stated in that notice were:
That I'm supposed to have a psychotic disorder, I honestly know that I am a good worker, work for the community and only had an unusual situation that happened in 2003, which made me look psychotic even though I was not.
Effectively those grounds challenged the finding that Mrs Adams had a mental illness.
An Amended Notice of Appeal was lodged on 13 November 2008. The amended grounds of appeal are:
(1)   That the Board had created a legitimate expectation that reasons for their decision would be provided.
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273
(2)   The Board therefore has an implied statutory duty to provide reasons.
Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Leases Tribunal (1996) 2 Qd R 462
(3)   The Board failed to give adequate notice of reasons as per this duty, thereby denying the appellant procedural fairness.
R v North ex Parte Oakey (1927) 1 KB 491
(4)   The Board's failure to give reasons invites this Honourable Court to infer that the Board had no good reason for their decision to make the Order, and as such had therefore acted in abuse of their power.
Padfield v Minister for Agriculture (1968) AC 997
(5)   That as a result of this implied abuse of power in not providing reasons; the appellant has been denied…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams v Guardianship Board

Details

AGLC: Adams v Guardianship Board [2008] SADC 159
Case: [2008] SADC 159
Decision Date: 24 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Adams v Guardianship Board, the District Court of South Australia considered an appeal against a Community Treatment Order imposed by the Guardianship Board. Mrs Adams, the appellant, challenged the order on the grounds that the Board failed to provide reasons for its decision. The appeal was filed when the order had only 11 days left to run. The court considered whether the oral reasons provided by the Board during the hearing were sufficient to meet the statutory obligation to provide written reasons for the decision. The Board had received medical evidence and heard submissions from an advocate and a friend of Mrs Adams. The Board member explained the criteria for making a Community Treatment Order and invited Mrs Adams to ask questions. The court held that the oral reasons, recorded in the transcript of proceedings, were sufficient to satisfy the requirement for written reasons. The court found that the Board had not failed to provide reasons and dismissed the appeal on the basis that the Community Treatment Order had almost run its course and there was no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the Board. The court also considered the compelling evidence from Dr Stephan, a consultant psychiatrist, that supported the order made on 28 May 2008. The court found no merit in the grounds of appeal that the Board had not given adequate notice of reasons, had acted in abuse of their power, or had denied the appellant procedural fairness or natural justice.

The court emphasised that the adequacy of reasons given for a decision depends on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the tribunal and the proceedings. The court held that the ex-tempore reasons of the Board, while brief, were adequate in light of the nature and purpose of the hearing and the relative informality with which the proceedings were conducted. The court found that the reasons provided by the Board member, when considered in light of the discussion during the hearing, provided a sufficient explanation of the matters that were taken into account and the reasons why the Community Treatment Order was made. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that none of the grounds in the Amended Notice of Appeal gave rise to a reason for allowing the appeal.

Orders