CCP v NSW Trustee and Guardian

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	CCP v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 256
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	07 December 2015
Decision date:	07 December 2015
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	J Kelly, Senior Member
Decision:	The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application for review of the respondent’s decision.
Catchwords:	JURISDICTION – financial management order – management terminated by death - alleged failure to manage estate causing loss - application for reimbursement to estate
Legislation Cited:	NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 ss 10(2), 16(1), 55 to 59, 62, 93, 94, 95 NSW Trustee and Guardian Regulation 2008 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 s 63(2)
Cases Cited:	BNI v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 69 CU v Protective Commissioner (No. 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 26 Davies v Protective Commissioner (GD) [2008] NSWADTAP 59 Commonwealth of Australia v Shaw [2006] NSWCA 209; 66 NSWLR 325
Texts Cited:	Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	CCP (Applicant) NSW Trustee and Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel:     Solicitors: CCP (Applicant in Person) NSW Trustee and Guardian (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1510471

Judgment

The decision to be reviewed

1. The applicant, CCP, seeks the review of the decision made by the Director Finance and Client Funds Management of the NSW Trustee and Guardian not to approve reimbursement of $7,167.17 withdrawn from her late brother’s bank account during the period he was under a Financial Management Order (FMO) appointing NSW Trustee and Guardian (the respondent) as the manager. The decision is undated. I refer to the decision as “the respondent’s decision”. The applicant stated that she was notified of it on 10 November 2014. She applied to the Tribunal on 16 July 2015.

The issue in the case

2. The issue in this case is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review that decision. For the reasons that follow, I have decided that it does not.

Background

3. The FMO over the affairs of the applicant’s brother was made on 18 March 2014 or 2 April 2014 by the Guardianship Tribunal. Both dates are mentioned in the material filed in this case. The applicant’s brother died on 18 July 2014.

4. The Tribunal also appointed the Public Guardian to make decisions about the applicant’s brother’s accommodation, health care, medical and dental treatment and access to services.

5. I do not have a copy of the decision making that order and appointment.

6. The applicant claims that the respondent did not manage her brother’s financial affairs properly, allowing $7,167.17 of unauthorised debit transactions from a bank account during the above period. She has described that conduct in various ways including as negligent and failing to review and investigate bank statements received during the three months of financial management.

Submissions

7. Pursuant to directions Deputy President Hennessy made on 29 September 2015, the respondent filed submissions in support of its claim that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the applicant filed submissions in reply. The matter has been…