DYH v Public Guardian (No 3)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

DYH v Public Guardian (No 3) [2022] NSWCATAD 95

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

18 March 2022

Decision date:

18 March 2022

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

K Ransome, Senior Member

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the disclosure or publication of the name of the applicant and of the protected person and of other identifying information with respect to the applicant and the protected person is prohibited.

(2) The review application is dismissed under s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – application for dismissal – whether an administratively reviewable decision – whether application misconceived

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Guardianship Act 1987

Guardianship Regulation 2016

Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

Cases Cited:

DYH v Public Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 136

DYH v Public Guardian (No 2) [2021] NSWTAP 400

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

DYH (Applicant)
Public Guardian (Respondent)

Representation:

Applicant in person
Respondent by its employed solicitor

File Number(s):

2022/00010498

Publication restriction:

Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the disclosure or publication of the name of the applicant and of the protected person and of other identifying information with respect to the applicant and the protected person is prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 12 January 2022 DYH lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking review of a decision of the Public Guardian she stated she received on 12 January 2022. I note that the applicant is known as DYH to protect the identity of her mother, the protected person, although no formal order has been made to this effect. For clarity, I will make an order under s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the CAT Act) to prohibit the broadcast or publication of the identity of the applicant or the protected person.

2. In the section of the review application form where DYH was asked to provide grounds for review of the decision she stated:

That the Public guardian exercise the decision dated 7 December 2020, which he has refused to exercise. That the decision of 12 January 2022, be reviewed and assessed in accordance with the Section 54 of the CAT Act, (3) procedural rules and that Ben Sutton has breached the Model Litigant Policy. The applicant again sent a proposal dated on 13 December 2021, within the 28 days to respond which will coincide to exercise the 7 December 2020 access. The email dated 12 January 2022. Section 50 – When hearings are required. (1) (d) in such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the procedural rules. SECTION 56 overriding purpose.

3. The reference to a proposal dated 13 December 2021 appears to be to a letter from DYH to the Public Guardian dated 15 December 2021 which, among other things, proposes that weekly visits be arranged between DYH…