Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: AJJ v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWADTAP 30 Hearing dates: 22 June 2012 Decision date: 22 June 2012 Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President
C Huntsman, Judicial Member
A Wunsch, Non-judicial MemberDecision: Leave to appeal on grounds other than a question of law is refused
Catchwords: APPEAL - leave to appeal on grounds other than a question of law - leave refused Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Guardianship Act 1987Cases Cited: K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052 Category: Principal judgment Parties: AJJ (Appellant)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (First Respondent)
AJK (Second Respondent)
AJL (Third Respondent
Guardianship Tribunal (Fourth Respondent)Representation: Counsel
Ms C King (Second Respondent)
AJJ - In person
NSW Trustee and Guardian - No appearance
AJK - Ms B Weule (Guardian ad litem)
AJL - In person
Guardianship Tribunal - Ms A Sprouster
File Number(s): 128004 Decision under appeal
- Citation:
- 2012/485
- Date of Decision:
- 2012-03-12 00:00:00
- File Number(s):
- C/42546
REASONS FOR DECISION
HER HONOUR: This is an appeal by AJJ against a decision of the Guardianship Tribunal made on 12 March 2012. AJJ is the sister of AJK who is a young man with Down's Syndrome. There is a dispute between AJJ and her mother in relation to many aspects of AJK's care, both health care and accommodation issues. Prior to October 2011, AJJ was the guardian and financial manager for her brother. She had the authority to make decisions about where he should live and the health care he should receive. In October 2011 AJJ's mother (AJL) applied to the Guardianship Tribunal for a review of those orders.
The Guardianship Tribunal revoked both AJJ's appointments and appointed the Public Guardian and the NSW Public Trustee respectively as AJK's guardian and financial manager. Later in March 2012 the Guardianship Tribunal heard another application for a review of those orders.
At that time the Guardianship Tribunal varied the guardianship order giving AJJ power to make decisions about health care and consent to medical and dental treatment. The Guardianship Tribunal retained the Public Guardian to make decisions in relation to accommodation, services and travel and also retained the New South Wales Trustee to make decisions in relation to AJK's finances.
It is the decision of 12 March 2012 against which AJJ has appealed. She is entitled to appeal on a question of law but requires the Tribunal's leave to appeal on any other ground: s 118B of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act). AJJ made it clear, firstly, that she was appealing against both decisions of the Guardianship Tribunal; that is, the decision relating to guardianship and the decision relating to financial management, and, secondly, that she was not appealing on any question of law.
The issue in these proceedings is whether or not the Appeal Panel should grant leave for AJJ to appeal against either the Guardianship Tribunal's guardianship decision or the Guardianship Tribunal's financial management decision. We have decided to refuse leave…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read AJJ v NSW Trustee and Guardian 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] NSWADTAP 30
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue for the Court of Appeal was whether AJJ's appeal should be heard on grounds other than a question of law. The Court considered whether AJJ's appeal raised a significant point of law or principle that warranted further consideration. The Court noted that the appeal was based on AJJ's disagreement with the substance of the decision made by the trustee, rather than the process or law applied. The Court of Appeal found that the appeal did not raise a significant point of law or principle that warranted further consideration.
The Court of Appeal found that AJJ's appeal did not raise a significant point of law or principle that warranted further consideration. The Court considered the grounds of appeal and found that they were based on a disagreement with the substance of the decision made by the trustee, rather than the process or law applied. The Court held that AJJ's appeal did not meet the threshold for leave to appeal on grounds other than a question of law. As a result, AJJ's application for leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal on grounds other than a question of law is refused
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.