Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: DEN v Benevolent Society [2017] NSWCATAD 309 Hearing dates: 14 September 2017 Date of orders: 25 October 2017 Decision date: 25 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Anderson, Senior Member Decision: The application for stay or interim order filed 29 August 2017 is dismissed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- where administratively reviewable decision – where decision to remove from an authorised carer the responsibility for the daily care and control of child - 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
CMJ v Secretary Department of Family and Community Services [2017] NSWCATAD 52
DDR v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd [2017] NSWCATAD 266
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 247Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: DEN (Applicant)
Benevolent Society (Respondent)Representation: Advocates:
Solicitors:
J Smith (Applicant)
K Stanford (Respondent)
Care Legal (Applicant)
Stanfords Solicitors and Conveyancers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00265980 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 applicant “DEQ”, seeks an order for a stay or to otherwise affect the operation of a reviewable decision pursuant to section 60 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) made by the Benevolent Society concerning 2 children: ‘S’ born in September 2006 now aged 11 years and…
Continue reading DEN v Benevolent Society
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Den v Benevolent Society [2017] NSWCATAD 309
- Case
- [2017] NSWCATAD 309
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved a dispute between DEN and the Benevolent Society. The primary issue at hand was the decision of the Benevolent Society to remove the applicant's responsibility for the daily care and control of a child. The applicant sought a stay or other order under sections 60, 61, and 62 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), in order to challenge the administratively reviewable decision. The court was required to determine whether such an order or stay was desirable in the circumstances.
The legal issues before the court included whether the removal of the applicant's responsibility for the daily care and control of the child was a valid exercise of the Benevolent Society's powers, and whether there were any grounds for the applicant to seek a stay or other order under the relevant sections of the Administrative Decisions Review Act. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, as well as the principles of administrative law, in determining whether the decision was reviewable and, if so, whether an order or stay was appropriate.
In considering the matter, the court found that the decision to remove the applicant's responsibility for the daily care and control of the child was a valid exercise of the Benevolent Society's powers. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for the grant of a stay or other order under the Administrative Decisions Review Act, and therefore dismissed the application for such an order. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and the relevant principles of administrative law.
The final orders of the court were that the application for a stay or interim order filed on 29 August 2017 was dismissed. The court held that there were no grounds for the grant of such an order, and that the decision of the Benevolent Society to remove the applicant's responsibility for the daily care and control of the child was valid. The applicant was not granted leave to appeal the decision.
The legal issues before the court included whether the removal of the applicant's responsibility for the daily care and control of the child was a valid exercise of the Benevolent Society's powers, and whether there were any grounds for the applicant to seek a stay or other order under the relevant sections of the Administrative Decisions Review Act. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, as well as the principles of administrative law, in determining whether the decision was reviewable and, if so, whether an order or stay was appropriate.
In considering the matter, the court found that the decision to remove the applicant's responsibility for the daily care and control of the child was a valid exercise of the Benevolent Society's powers. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for the grant of a stay or other order under the Administrative Decisions Review Act, and therefore dismissed the application for such an order. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and the relevant principles of administrative law.
The final orders of the court were that the application for a stay or interim order filed on 29 August 2017 was dismissed. The court held that there were no grounds for the grant of such an order, and that the decision of the Benevolent Society to remove the applicant's responsibility for the daily care and control of the child was valid. The applicant was not granted leave to appeal the decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application for stay or interim order filed 29 August 2017 is dismissed.
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.