CSY v Veritas House Inc - [2017] NSWCATAD 211

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: CSY v Veritas House Inc. [2017] NSWCATAD 211
Hearing dates: 01 February 2017 and 04 April 2017
Date of orders: 29 June 2017
Decision date: 29 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Anderson, Senior Member
R Royer, General Member
Decision:
(1) The decision to remove the children from the care of the applicant is affirmed.
(2) The decision to cancel the authorisation of the applicant is affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-review of decisions under section 245 Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998(NSW) and section 28 (1)(a) Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW) – where removal of children from the care of the applicant due to breach of safety plan and code of conduct – where issue is the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before the Tribunal – where decision to remove the children from the care of the applicant affirmed.
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2012 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AQY & AQZ v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1028
Bell-Collins Children v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 853
Blinko and Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146
Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82
Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) and the Bell-Collins Children [2014] NSWChC 5
DFaCS (NSW) and the Colt Children [2013] NSWChC 5
Director-General, Department of Community Services v D & Ors [2007] NSWSC 762
J v Lieschke [1987] HCA 4; (1987) 162 CLR 447
Johnson v Page [2007] Fam CA 1235; (2007) FLC 93-344
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
M v M [1988] HCA 68; 166 CLR 69
MXS v Department of Family and Human Services (NSW) [2012] NSWDC 63
PR v Department of Community Services [2009] NSWADT 277
Re Cameron [2012] NSWSC 1453
Re Kerry (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 127
Roberts v Balancio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436
The Department of Community Services v "Rachel Grant", "Tracy Reid", "Sharon Reid and "Frank Reid" [2010] CLN 1
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: CSY (Applicant)
Veritas House Inc. (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Harper (Applicant)
M Neville (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Cunninghams (Applicant)
Campbell Paton & Taylor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/00378385
Publication restriction: Pursuant to section 65 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 a person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of, publish or broadcast the name of any person who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or to whom any proceedings in the Tribunal relate, or who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CSY v Veritas House Inc 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: [2017] NSWCATAD 211
Decision Date: 29 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of CSY v Veritas House Inc, the applicants, CSY, sought judicial review of decisions made by Veritas House Inc, an authorised organisation under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), to remove children from their care and cancel their authorisation. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decisions made by Veritas House Inc were in accordance with the applicable legislation, and whether the decisions were the correct and preferable ones having regard to the material before the Tribunal. The applicants argued that the decision to remove the children from their care and to cancel their authorisation was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

The court found that the decisions made by Veritas House Inc were in accordance with the applicable legislation, and that the decisions were the correct and preferable ones having regard to the material before the Tribunal. The court found that the applicants had breached a safety plan and code of conduct, which justified the removal of the children from their care and the cancellation of their authorisation. The court also found that the applicants had failed to provide adequate evidence to rebut the findings of the Tribunal.

The court affirmed the decisions of Veritas House Inc to remove the children from the care of the applicants and to cancel their authorisation. The court found that the decisions were reasonable and in accordance with the applicable legislation. The applicants' application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The decision to remove the children from the care of the applicant is affirmed.

(2) The decision to cancel the authorisation of the applicant is affirmed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	CSY v Veritas House Inc. [2017] NSWCATAD 211
Hearing dates:	01 February 2017 and 04 April 2017
Date of orders:	29 June 2017
Decision date:	29 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Anderson, Senior Member R Royer, General Member
Decision:	(1) The decision to remove the children from the care of the applicant is affirmed. (2) The decision to cancel the authorisation of the applicant is affirmed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-review of decisions under section 245 Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998(NSW) and section 28 (1)(a) Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW) – where removal of children from the care of the applicant due to breach of safety plan and code of conduct – where issue is the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before the Tribunal – where decision to remove the children from the care of the applicant affirmed.
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2012 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	AQY & AQZ v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1028 Bell-Collins Children v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 853 Blinko and Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146 Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82 Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) and the Bell-Collins Children [2014] NSWChC 5 DFaCS (NSW) and the Colt Children [2013] NSWChC 5 Director-General, Department of Community Services v D & Ors [2007] NSWSC 762 J v Lieschke [1987] HCA 4; (1987) 162 CLR 447 Johnson v Page [2007] Fam CA 1235; (2007) FLC 93-344 Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32 M v M [1988] HCA 68; 166 CLR 69 MXS v Department of Family and Human Services (NSW) [2012] NSWDC 63 PR v Department of Community Services [2009] NSWADT 277 Re Cameron [2012] NSWSC 1453 Re Kerry (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 127 Roberts v Balancio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436 The Department of Community Services v "Rachel Grant", "Tracy Reid", "Sharon Reid and "Frank Reid" [2010] CLN 1 YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	CSY (Applicant) Veritas House Inc. (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: R Harper (Applicant) M Neville (Respondent) Solicitors: Cunninghams (Applicant) Campbell Paton & Taylor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/00378385
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to section 65 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 a person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of, publish or broadcast the name of any person who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or to whom any proceedings in the Tribunal relate, or who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings…