Dte v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd - [2019] NSWCATAD 218

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: DTE v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd [2019] NSWCATAD 218
Hearing dates: 5 August 2019
Date of orders: 25 October 2019
Decision date: 25 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: S Scarlett, Senior Member
S Davison, General Member
Decision:
The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Respondent made on 14 December 2018 to remove the child known as WH from the care of the Applicants.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – where administratively reviewable decision – where decision to remove from authorised carers the responsibility for the daily care and control of a child
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), s 63
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), ss 8, 9, 13, 138, 140, 245
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 65
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW), s 28
Cases Cited: DDR v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd [2017] NSWCATAD 266
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: DTE (First Applicant)
DTG (Second Applicant)
Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd (Respondent)
Maree Turner (Guardian ad Litem)
Representation: Solicitors:
First Applicant (Self Represented)
Second Applicant (Self Represented)
Marque Lawyers (Respondent)
Hansen Legal (Guardian ad Litem)

File Number(s): 2019/00074133
Publication restriction: In accordance with the provisions of 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

The Applicants in this matter, who are referred to by the pseudonyms “DTE” and “DTG”, seek administrative review of a decision made by the Respondent under s 140 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) to remove a child, who is to be referred to by the pseudonym WH, from their care.
The Respondent opposes the Application and asks that the decision should be affirmed.

Jurisdiction

The decision is an administratively reviewable decision which the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to review under s 245(1)(c) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act and s 28(1)(a) of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW).
The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to affirm the decision by virtue of s 63(3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW).

Background

The child WH was born on 26 November 2008.
In October 2012, the Children’s Court of NSW ordered that all aspects of parental responsibility for WH and his siblings be granted to the Minister for Family and Community Services until each child attains the…

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 Dte 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: [2019] NSWCATAD 218
Decision Date: 25 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dte versus Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd, the Federal Court was tasked with reviewing a decision made by an administrative body. The dispute centred around the removal of responsibility from the applicants, the parents of a child, concerning the daily care and control of their child, identified as WH. This decision was made by the respondent, Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd, on 14 December 2018. The parents sought to challenge this decision, asserting that it was flawed and unjust, thereby necessitating judicial review.

The court was required to determine whether the administrative decision was legally sound and whether it was made in accordance with the applicable legal framework. This involved assessing whether the decision-maker adhered to the correct legal principles, exercised its discretion appropriately, and considered all relevant factors. Furthermore, the court needed to evaluate the weight of evidence presented, ensuring that the decision was not unreasonable or based on an error of law. The primary focus was on the process and legality of the decision rather than the merits of the outcome itself.

Upon examining the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the decision-maker had followed the correct legal procedures and exercised its discretion appropriately. The decision was based on a thorough assessment of the circumstances, and all relevant factors had been considered. The court concluded that the decision was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent, maintaining the removal of the child from the care of the applicants. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards in administrative processes and the role of the courts in ensuring that such decisions are lawful and justified.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Respondent made on 14 December 2018 to remove the child known as WH from the care of the Applicants.

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:	DTE v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd [2019] NSWCATAD 218
Hearing dates:	5 August 2019
Date of orders:	25 October 2019
Decision date:	25 October 2019
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Scarlett, Senior Member S Davison, General Member
Decision:	The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Respondent made on 14 December 2018 to remove the child known as WH from the care of the Applicants.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – where administratively reviewable decision – where decision to remove from authorised carers the responsibility for the daily care and control of a child
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), s 63 Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), ss 8, 9, 13, 138, 140, 245 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 65 Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW), s 28
Cases Cited:	DDR v Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd [2017] NSWCATAD 266
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	DTE (First Applicant) DTG (Second Applicant) Lifestyle Solutions (Aust) Ltd (Respondent) Maree Turner (Guardian ad Litem)
Representation:	Solicitors: First Applicant (Self Represented) Second Applicant (Self Represented) Marque Lawyers (Respondent) Hansen Legal (Guardian ad Litem)
File Number(s):	2019/00074133
Publication restriction:	In accordance with the provisions of 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.