DL v Public Guardian and Ors

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

Appeal Panel - External


CITATION: DL v Public Guardian and ors [2008] NSWADTAP 6
PARTIES:

APPELLANT
DL

FIRST RESPONDENT
Public Guardian

SECOND RESPONDENT
Bronwyn Powell

THIRD RESPONDENT
DT

DECISION MAKER
Guardianship Tribunal
FILE NUMBER: 078019
HEARING DATES: 23 January 2008
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 23 January 2008
 
DATE OF DECISION: 

11 February 2008
BEFORE: 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 13
REPRESENTATION:

APPELLANT
In person

FIRST RESPONDENT
No apperance

SECOND RESPONDENT
No appearance

THIRD RESPONDENT
B Obradovic, barrister

DECISION MAKER
E Cho, legal officer
ORDERS: 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,…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2008] NSWADTAP 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DL, the applicant, sought a review of a guardianship order made by the Guardianship Tribunal concerning DT, the respondent. The dispute centred on the validity and appropriateness of the guardianship order, which was issued on 9 October 2007, and involved the Public Guardian and another party as respondents. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

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.