DEF v Children's Guardian

Case [2017] NSWCATAD 294


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: DEF v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 294
Hearing dates:22 August 2017
Date of orders: 06 October 2017
Decision date: 06 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Anderson, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) The application for a stay of the operation of the decision under review is refused.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-review under section 27 Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)-where cancellation of working with children check clearance- where application for a stay of the decision while review application is to be heard later – where paramount concern is protecting children from child abuse – whether to grant an interim stay under section 60, 61, 62 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) – where the applicant and his partner reside permanently in Queensland – where factors to consider on stay application do not favour granting a stay.
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997(NSW)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Regulation 2013 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998(NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Constitution (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Cases Cited: 1st Fleet Pty Ltd v Australian Co-Operative Foods Ltd [2006] NSWSC 881
AHJ v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2011] NSWADT 311
ALH Group Pty Ltd v Dicey’s Toowong Pty Ltd [2003] 2 QdR 1
AYU v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69
BCS v NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal [2015] NSWSC 126
Bentran Pty Ltd v Sabbarton [2014] NSWCATAP 37
BFX v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115
BGX v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 173
BHL v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 46
BHY v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 91
BJB v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 111
BJB v NSW Office of the Children's Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164
BKE v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523
BKN v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 213
BKP v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 207
BKV v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 65
BKV v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 1602
BLD v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 2
Bowen-James v Delegate of Director-General of Department of Health (1992) 27 NSWLR 457
BPA v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 36
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336
Bronze Wing Ammunition Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 988
Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2017] NSWCA 41
Burns v Corbett; Gaynor v Burns [2017] NSWCA 3
BVT v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWSC 1169
BXJ v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 11
BYR v Children’s Guardian [2013] NSWADT 310
BZU v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 3
Carr v Simnovic (1980) 26 SASR 263
Castlemaine Tooheys Limited v South Australia [1986] HCA 58
CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214
Children’s Guardian v BQJ [2016] NSWSC 869
CJT v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWSC 738
CLD v Children's Guardian…

Continue reading DEF v Children's Guardian

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DEF v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 294
Case
[2017] NSWCATAD 294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DEF v Children's Guardian involved the applicant, DEF, who sought to challenge the decision of the Children's Guardian to cancel his working with children check clearance under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW). The applicant sought an interim stay of that decision pending the hearing of the substantive review application. The application was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an interim stay of the decision to cancel the applicant's clearance while the substantive review application was being heard. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) and the factors it was required to consider under section 60, 61 and 62 of that Act. The paramount concern in making this decision was to protect children from child abuse.

The court concluded that the factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant an interim stay did not favour doing so. The applicant and his partner resided permanently in Queensland, and the applicant did not have a close connection to New South Wales. The court also noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that there was a serious question to be tried on the merits of the substantive review application. Accordingly, the court refused the application for an interim stay of the decision to cancel the applicant's clearance. The applicant was ordered to pay the Children's Guardian's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The application for a stay of the operation of the decision under review 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.