AF v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 62 min read

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AF v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 210
Hearing dates:On the papers
Decision date: 16 October 2012
Jurisdiction:General Division
Before: P H Molony, Judicial Member
Decision:

1. Pursuant to s 71(4) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 the Tribunal being, satisfied that AF is an incapacitated person within the meaning of s 71(7)(b,) appoints a guardian from the guardian ad litem panel to represent AF in these proceedings.

2. Liberty to apply with respect to hearing dates.

Catchwords: Incapacity - appointment of representative - guardian ad litem
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Cases Cited: AF v RTA [2009] NSWADT 274
AF v Minister for Health; Minister for Health v AF [2012] NSWADTAP 16
Crewdson v Central Sydney AHS [2002] NSWCA 345
Dezfouli v Corrective Services [2011] NSWADT 11
GA v The University of Sydney (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 31
Roads and Maritime Services v AF; AF v Roads and Maritime Services (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 63
Slaveski v State of Victoria and Others [2009] VSC 596
NZ v State of New South Wales (Department of Housing) [2009] NSWADT 165
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: AF (Applicant, in person)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: AF (Applicant, in person)
King and Wood Mallesons (Respondent)
File Number(s):073135 and 073275

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. These reasons for decision consider whether or not the Tribunal should appoint a person to represent AF in proceedings that she has brought in the Tribunal under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, despite AF objecting to such an appointment. AF filed two applications with respect to 7 separate privacy complaints.

  1. In these reasons the names of private individuals have been anonymised to protect their privacy.

The relevant law

  1. Section 71 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 relevantly provides -

(4) If it appears to the Tribunal that a party is an incapacitated person, the Tribunal may appoint any other person the Tribunal thinks fit to represent the party.
(5) Anything done or omitted to be done by a member of the Guardian Ad Litem Panel who is appointed by the Tribunal under subsection (4) to represent a party to the proceedings who is an incapacitated person does not subject the member personally to any action, liability, claim or demand if the thing was done, or omitted to be done, in good faith for the purpose of representing the incapacitated person.
(5A) However, any such liability attaches instead to the Crown.
...
(7)In this section:
Guardian Ad Litem Panel means the panel constituted as the Guardian Ad Litem Panel by the Director-General of the Department of Justice and Attorney General.
incapacitated person means:
(a) a minor, or
(b) a person who is totally or partially incapable of representing himself or herself in proceedings before the Tribunal because the person is intellectually, physically, psychologically or sensorily disabled, of advanced age, a mentally incapacitated person or otherwise disabled, or
(c)…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AF v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] NSWADT 210
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AF v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) involved AF, who was deemed an incapacitated individual, and Roads and Maritime Services. The dispute centred around the incapacity of AF and the necessity of appointing a representative to act on their behalf in the proceedings. The case was adjudicated by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, which was tasked with determining the appropriate legal representative for AF.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether AF was indeed incapacitated as defined under the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 and whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed to represent AF. The court was required to ensure that AF's rights and interests were adequately protected in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that AF met the criteria for an incapacitated person as per section 71(7)(b) of the Act. The court held that AF's incapacity necessitated the appointment of a guardian to represent them in the proceedings. The Tribunal appointed a guardian from the guardian ad litem panel to act on behalf of AF, ensuring that their interests were safeguarded throughout the case. The court also granted liberty to apply regarding hearing dates, allowing for flexibility in scheduling the proceedings to accommodate the needs of the incapacitated party.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 71(4) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 the Tribunal being, satisfied that AF is an incapacitated person within the meaning of s 71(7)(b,) appoints a guardian from the guardian ad litem panel to represent AF in these proceedings.

2. Liberty to apply with respect to hearing dates.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.