G v G

The matter of G v G was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved a protected person, G, who lacked the capacity to manage her own affairs due to cognitive impairment. Her husband, who was also her legal guardian, proposed to marry her to an overseas national. The court was tasked with determining whether the proposal was in the best interests of the protected person and whether the marriage would expose her to exploitation. The court also needed to decide whether to facilitate the placement of G's name on a watchlist at Australian points of entry and exit and whether to order that G's passport be held by her guardians.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed marriage was in the best interests of G and whether the court should intervene to prevent potential exploitation. The court had to consider the nature and purpose of the protective jurisdiction and determine the meaning of capacity for self-management in this context. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether orders should be made to place G's name on the watchlist at points of entry and exit to Australia and whether her passport should be held by her guardians to prevent unauthorised travel.

The court found that the proposal for G to marry an overseas national was not in her best interests and would expose her to potential exploitation. It held that the protective jurisdiction was intended to protect vulnerable individuals from harm and exploitation, and the proposed marriage did not align with this purpose. The court also concluded that it was appropriate to facilitate the placement of G's name on the watchlist at Australian points of entry and exit and to order that her passport be held by her guardians to prevent unauthorised travel. The court's decision was based on the need to protect G from potential harm and exploitation and to ensure that her best interests were being safeguarded.

The court made orders facilitating the placement of G's name on the watchlist at Australian points of entry and exit and ordered that G's passport be held by her guardians. The court also made orders that G's husband was not to be involved in decisions relating to her marriage to an overseas national without the court's approval. These orders were intended to protect G from potential exploitation and to ensure that her best interests were being safeguarded.