Appeal Panel - External
CITATION: DL v Public Guardian and ors [2008] NSWADTAP 6 PARTIES: APPELLANT
DLFIRST RESPONDENT
Public GuardianSECOND RESPONDENT
Bronwyn PowellTHIRD RESPONDENT
DECISION MAKER
DT
Guardianship TribunalFILE NUMBER: 078019 HEARING DATES: 23 January 2008 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 23 January 2008
DATE OF DECISION:
11 February 2008BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Millar J - Judicial Member; Whaite A - Non Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Guardianship order - review MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter DECISION UNDER APPEAL: Review of a Guardianship Order FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: C/37177 Matter Nos: 2007/4896, 2007/4897 DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 10/09/2007 LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 CASES CITED: IF v IG & Ors [2004] NSWADTAP 3
K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman [1980] HCA 13; (1980) 144 CLR 13REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
In personFIRST RESPONDENT
No apperanceSECOND RESPONDENT
No appearanceTHIRD RESPONDENT
DECISION MAKER
B Obradovic, barrister
E Cho, legal officerORDERS: The guardianship order made by the Guardianship Tribunal in relation to DT on 9 October 2007 is affirmed.
“Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies to this decision.
Section 126 provides
(1A) This section applies only to the following:
(a) proceedings in the Community Services Division of the Tribunal,
(b) appeals to an Appeal Panel from a decision made by the Tribunal in the Community Services Division,
(b1) proceedings in relation to an external appeal made under section 67A of the Guardianship Act 1987 or section 21A of the Protected Estates Act 1983,
(b2) proceedings in relation to a reviewable decision made under the Guardianship Act 1987 or the Protected Estates Act 1983
(c) such other proceedings (or class or classes of proceedings) as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.
(1) A person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, publish or broadcast the name of any person:
(a) who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or
(b) to whom any proceedings before the Tribunal relate, or
(c) who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings before the Tribunal,
whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of.Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
(2) This section does not prohibit the publication or broadcasting of an official report of the proceedings that includes the name of any person the publication or broadcasting of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section.
(3) For the purposes of this section, 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
1 DT is a woman in her 60’s who has been diagnosed with cognitive impairments consistent with dementia. She also has symptoms of psychosis and some physical ailments including high blood pressure. DL, her partner of 34 years,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read DL v Public Guardian and Ors 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] NSWADTAP 6
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Guardianship Tribunal had correctly exercised its powers under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 when it made the guardianship order. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the Tribunal had adhered to the statutory criteria and whether its decision was supported by the evidence. The applicant contended that the order was not in the best interests of DT and that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider certain factors.
The court examined the legislative framework and the evidence presented to the Tribunal. It found that the Tribunal had followed the correct procedure and had considered the relevant statutory criteria. The court was satisfied that the evidence supported the Tribunal's conclusion that the guardianship order was in DT's best interests. Consequently, the court upheld the order, affirming that the Tribunal's decision was valid and appropriately made.
The court further noted that the decision of the Guardianship Tribunal was subject to review under section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. This affirmed the final orders of the court, which were that the guardianship order made by the Guardianship Tribunal on 9 October 2007 was to be upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
The guardianship order made by the Guardianship Tribunal in relation to DT on 9 October 2007 is affirmed. "Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies to this decision.
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.