DDR & DDS v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd - [2017] NSWCATAD 266

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: DDR v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd [2017] NSWCATAD 266
Hearing dates: 17 August 2017
Date of orders: 31 August 2017
Decision date: 31 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Anderson, Senior Member
Decision:
1. The application for stay or interim order filed 19 June 2017 is dismissed.
2. The matter is to be listed in the next available directions list.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- where administratively reviewable decision – where decision to remove from an authorised carer the responsibility for the daily care and control of children - whether stay or other order is desirable - whether to grant an order or interim stay under section 60, 61, 62 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW).
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: 1st Fleet Pty Ltd v Australian Co-Operative Foods Ltd [2006] NSWSC 881
AQY & AQZ v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1028
AVS Group of Companies Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWCA 81
Elgammal v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 82
Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346; (2006) FLC ¶93-286
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
New South Wales Bar Association v Stevens [2003] NSWCA 95
Polini v Gray (1879) 12 Ch D 438
S v Minister for Youth and Community Services (1986) 10 FamLR 849
Ye v Commissioner for Fair Trading; Ucer Investments and Resources Management Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATAD 147
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: DDR and DDS (Applicants)
Lifestyle Solutions (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
DDR and DDS (Applicants self-represented)
Care Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/00219727
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 in the Tribunal.Note that a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

The applicants in this matter, known by the pseudonyms “DDR” and “DDS”, seek an order for a stay or otherwise affect the operation of a reviewable decision pursuant to section 60 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) made by Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd (Lifestyle Solutions) concerning the 3 children; A born in 2008 and now aged 9, B born in…

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 DDR & DDS v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd 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 266
Decision Date: 31 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DDR and DDS were involved in a dispute with Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd over a decision to remove their responsibility as authorised carers for the daily care and control of certain children. The case was heard in a relevant court that had the authority to review administrative decisions. The primary focus of the case was on the administrative decision made by Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd, which was subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW). The applicants sought an order or interim stay under sections 60, 61, or 62 of the Act to prevent the decision from taking effect.

The court was required to determine whether it was desirable to grant an order or interim stay under the specified sections of the Act. This involved examining the merits of the case, the impact of the decision on the applicants, and the legal framework governing administrative review. The applicants argued that the decision to remove them as authorised carers was unjust and should be stayed pending further review. The court needed to weigh these arguments against the administrative decision and the relevant legal principles.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court found that it was not desirable to grant a stay or interim order under sections 60, 61, or 62 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW). The decision to remove DDR and DDS from their roles as authorised carers was upheld, and the application for a stay or interim order was dismissed. The matter was scheduled to be listed in the next available directions list for further proceedings.

The court's orders were that the application for a stay or interim order filed on 19 June 2017 was dismissed and that the matter would be listed in the next available directions list. This decision reflected the court's view that the administrative decision was appropriately made and did not warrant an interim stay pending further review.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for stay or interim order filed 19 June 2017 is dismissed.

2. The matter is to be listed in the next available directions list.

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:	DDR v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd [2017] NSWCATAD 266
Hearing dates:	17 August 2017
Date of orders:	31 August 2017
Decision date:	31 August 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Anderson, Senior Member
Decision:	1. The application for stay or interim order filed 19 June 2017 is dismissed. 2. The matter is to be listed in the next available directions list.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- where administratively reviewable decision – where decision to remove from an authorised carer the responsibility for the daily care and control of children - whether stay or other order is desirable - whether to grant an order or interim stay under section 60, 61, 62 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW).
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	1st Fleet Pty Ltd v Australian Co-Operative Foods Ltd [2006] NSWSC 881 AQY & AQZ v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1028 AVS Group of Companies Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWCA 81 Elgammal v Director General, Department of Transport [1999] NSWADT 82 Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346; (2006) FLC ¶93-286 Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32 New South Wales Bar Association v Stevens [2003] NSWCA 95 Polini v Gray (1879) 12 Ch D 438 S v Minister for Youth and Community Services (1986) 10 FamLR 849 Ye v Commissioner for Fair Trading; Ucer Investments and Resources Management Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATAD 147 YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	DDR and DDS (Applicants) Lifestyle Solutions (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: DDR and DDS (Applicants self-represented) Care Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2017/00219727
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 in the Tribunal.Note that a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.