ADW v NSW Trustee and Guardian

[2011] NSWADTAP 51

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

ADW v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2011] NSWADTAP 51

Hearing dates:

23 September 2011

Decision date:

23 September 2011

Jurisdiction:

Appeal Panel - External

Before:

Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President
C Huntsman, Judicial Member
Dr B Field, Non-Judicial Member

Decision:

1. Leave for ADW to appeal against the merits of the Guardianship Tribunal's decision is refused.

2. The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal in relation to ADW made on 18 March 2011 is affirmed.

Catchwords:

APPEAL - decision of Guardianship Tribunal to make a guardianship order -no question of law - no reason to grant leave for an appeal against the merits of the Guardianship Tribunal's decision

Legislation Cited:

Guardianship Act 1989

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

ADW (Appellant)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (Respondent)
ADX (Respondent)
AHF (Respondent)

Representation:

ADW (Appellant - in person)

File Number(s):

118006

Publication restriction:

S126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies

 Decision under appeal 

Date of Decision:

2011-03-18 00:00:00

File Number(s):

File No C/43144
Matter No 2011/60

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. ADW is a 59 year old woman who has had schizophrenia from a young age. She receives a disability support pension as well as $100 a week from her elderly father. She lives in a unit previously owned by her mother. ADW's mother died in 2008 leaving her a life interest in the unit, or a substitute property if that property was sold. ADW has debts in the vicinity of $135,000 including a mortgage over the property. The NSW Trustee, who is the executor of her mother's will, wishes to sell the unit to avoid a mortgagee sale. ADW refuses to move, saying that her elderly father is well off and when he dies, she may inherit money which she could use to pay her debts.

1. ADW's case manager with her local Community Mental Health Team applied to the Guardianship Tribunal for a guardianship order in relation to ADW. On 18 March 2011, the Guardianship Tribunal made a guardianship order for 12 months and appointed the Public Guardian as ADW's guardian. The Tribunal gave the Public Guardian the function of deciding where ADW should live including a coercive power to remove ADW from her current accommodation and place her in alternative accommodation. ADW has appealed to this Tribunal against that decision.

1. At the hearing before this Tribunal on 23 September 2011, ADW was the only active party. After hearing from ADW we gave short oral reasons for dismissing the appeal and affirming the Guardianship Tribunal's decision. ADW has requested written reasons for that decision.

Grounds of Appeal

1. In her Notice of Appeal the ADW sets out the grounds of appeal in the following way:

(1)   Grossly false information was presented to the tribunal on which decision was made. A great deal of the information given to Tribunal is false information. I want to complain to police or ICAC but was persuaded to appeal by a lawyer. (My) father is very well off. (My) brother told the tribunal my father has little money.

(2)   The psychiatrist's report is false and slanted. The social worker's report is full of falsehoods and slanted.

1. In a letter to the Tribunal dated 1 June 2011 ADW wrote:

Totally false information is presented to the tribunal by the social worker. The social worker said (I) have "unrealistic expectations from (my) father's will." Now this is totally false and incorrect information. I did write to the Guardianship Tribunal saying false information had been presented to them. They did not reply. I felt this information should be contained in the records. A lawyer explained to me they do not deal with material in this way. I wrote to the Guardianship Tribunal saying there is no record of what my father's profession was. After the hearing I said to the lawyer in charge my father has sold a farm for over a million dollars. The lawyer just sweared (sic) and did not note it.

This is partly due to false information given to the social worker and to the nurse that my father has little money by my brother (name deleted). . . However basically they should have checked and had on record what my father's profession is.

I said to the GP, a guardian is appointed yet no attempt is made to find who my father is or what his profession was. Some years ago my mother said that her husband is a government representative to Indonesia to the psychiatrist. This means he is Ambassador to Indonesia. The psychiatrist did not even bother to note it on the file.

This means I could expect a considerable sum in the will from my father after a long career in the diplomatic service.

So the statement given to the tribunal by the social worker is totally false. I explained to the GP that there are family funds which is why my brother (name deleted) said my father had little money. I felt the Tribunal should not be given false information.

. . . The Guardianship Tribunal's material is so sloppy. There is not even a record of what my father's name is or whether he is living. The social worker understandably did not believe the newspaper article about my father as my brother (name deleted) stated my father had little money. Now (my surname) is a very rare name. There are only 7 (people of the name) in Australia. There is only one person with the name of (my father) in Australia and the newspaper article is about him. . .

1. At the hearing, ADW re-iterated that her father was well off and that the Guardianship Tribunal made several factual mistakes in its decision.

1. ADW is entitled to appeal on a question of law but must obtain the Appeal Panel's permission before appealing on any other ground: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ( ADT Act ) s 118B(1).

1. ADW has not identified a question of law. Permission to appeal in relation to the merits of the Guardianship Tribunal's decision is refused. Even if the Guardianship Tribunal did make the "mistakes" or "omissions" to which ADW refers, correcting them will not affect their decision. The matters about which ADW has expressed concern are irrelevant to the questions that the Guardianship Tribunal had to decide.

Orders

1. Leave for ADW to appeal against the merits of the Guardianship Tribunal's decision is refused.

2. The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal in relation to ADW made on 18 March 2011 is affirmed.

**********

Decision last updated: 10 November 2011