CXN v Child and Adolescent Specialist Programs and Accommodation - [2017] NSWCATAD 152

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: CXN v Child and Adolescent Specialist Programs and Accommodation [2017] NSWCATAD 152
Hearing dates: 30 March 2017
Date of orders: 16 May 2017
Decision date: 16 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Anderson, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) That pursuant to section 52 (2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) within 7 days of the date of these orders, reasons be provided by CASPA Services Ltd which comply with section 49 (3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act to the extent required and as identified in this decision, in relation to the decision to remove from the care of the applicants the care responsibility for the 2 children who were previously in their care, and the reasons for revoking the authorisation of the applicants as authorised carers.
(2) That within 7 days of the date of these orders CASPA Services Ltd cause to be paid to the solicitors for the applicants the sum of $1320 which is the amount of the applicant’s costs assessed by the Tribunal and ordered to be paid pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- whether reasons provided by CASPA Services Ltd comply with section 49(3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) – whether the applicants are entitled to an order under section 52(2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) – consideration of the content of reasons required to be provided upon request for written reasons – order made for adequate reasons to be provided
COSTS – order for quantified costs due to special circumstances pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
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
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284; (2006) 67 NSWLR 372
Hoque v ARZ Building & Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 71
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
Osmond v Public Service Board [1984] 3 NSWLR 447
PR v Department of Community Services [2009] NSWADT 277
Re Cameron [2012] NSWSC 1453
Re Kerry (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 127
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme [2003] HCA 56; (2003) 216 CLR 212
Roberts v Balancio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436
Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: CXN & CXO (Applicants)
Secretary Department of Family and Community Services (Respondent)
Representation:
Advocates:
P Decle (Applicants)
S Pinchin (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Randall Legal (Applicants)
Trenches McKenzie Cox (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/00027274

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 CXN v Child and Adolescent Specialist Programs and Accommoda... 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 152
Decision Date: 16 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CXN and their spouse, who are foster carers, sought judicial review of decisions made by Child and Adolescent Specialist Programs and Accommodation (CASPA) to remove their care responsibility for two children and to revoke their authorisation as foster carers. The matter was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The primary legal issue was whether the reasons provided by CASPA complied with section 49(3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW). The applicants also sought an order under section 52(2) of the Act for CASPA to provide adequate reasons.

The CAT found that CASPA had failed to provide reasons that met the requirements of section 49(3) of the Act. The reasons provided by CASPA did not address all relevant considerations, and there was an omission of material facts. The CAT also found that CASPA had not demonstrated how the decision to remove the children and revoke authorisation was justified. Given these deficiencies, the CAT ordered CASPA to provide new reasons that comply with the statutory requirements within seven days. Additionally, the CAT ordered CASPA to pay the applicants' costs, amounting to $1320, due to special circumstances under section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

The tribunal emphasised the importance of providing comprehensive and transparent reasons for administrative decisions affecting individuals' care responsibilities. The CAT’s decision underscores the necessity for public authorities to articulate their reasoning clearly and to include all relevant considerations when making such significant decisions. The order for CASPA to furnish compliant reasons within a specified timeframe ensures that the applicants can understand and challenge the decision effectively. The award of costs recognises the procedural unfairness experienced by the applicants and the complexity of the issues involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) That pursuant to section 52 (2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) within 7 days of the date of these orders, reasons be provided by CASPA Services Ltd which comply with section 49 (3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act to the extent required and as identified in this decision, in relation to the decision to remove from the care of the applicants the care responsibility for the 2 children who were previously in their care, and the reasons for revoking the authorisation of the applicants as authorised carers.

(2) That within 7 days of the date of these orders CASPA Services Ltd cause to be paid to the solicitors for the applicants the sum of $1320 which is the amount of the applicant’s costs assessed by the Tribunal and ordered to be paid pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

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:	CXN v Child and Adolescent Specialist Programs and Accommodation [2017] NSWCATAD 152
Hearing dates:	30 March 2017
Date of orders:	16 May 2017
Decision date:	16 May 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Anderson, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) That pursuant to section 52 (2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) within 7 days of the date of these orders, reasons be provided by CASPA Services Ltd which comply with section 49 (3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act to the extent required and as identified in this decision, in relation to the decision to remove from the care of the applicants the care responsibility for the 2 children who were previously in their care, and the reasons for revoking the authorisation of the applicants as authorised carers. (2) That within 7 days of the date of these orders CASPA Services Ltd cause to be paid to the solicitors for the applicants the sum of $1320 which is the amount of the applicant’s costs assessed by the Tribunal and ordered to be paid pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- whether reasons provided by CASPA Services Ltd comply with section 49(3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) – whether the applicants are entitled to an order under section 52(2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) – consideration of the content of reasons required to be provided upon request for written reasons – order made for adequate reasons to be provided COSTS – order for quantified costs due to special circumstances pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
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 Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284; (2006) 67 NSWLR 372 Hoque v ARZ Building & Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 71 Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32 Osmond v Public Service Board [1984] 3 NSWLR 447 PR v Department of Community Services [2009] NSWADT 277 Re Cameron [2012] NSWSC 1453 Re Kerry (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 127 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme [2003] HCA 56; (2003) 216 CLR 212 Roberts v Balancio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436 Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181 YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	CXN & CXO (Applicants) Secretary Department of Family and Community Services (Respondent)
Representation:	Advocates: P Decle (Applicants) S Pinchin (Respondent) Solicitors: Randall Legal (Applicants) Trenches McKenzie Cox (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2017/00027274