Goode v Minister for Community Services - [2004] NSWADT 107

CITATION: Goode v Minister for Community Services [2004] NSWADT 107

DIVISION: Community Services Division

PARTIES: APPLICANTS
Heather Goode and Geoffrey Goode
RESPONDENT
Minister for Community Services

FILE NUMBER: 034051

HEARING DATES: 7/05/2004

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 05/07/2004

DATE OF DECISION:
06/03/2004

BEFORE: Britton A - Judicial Member; Moss J - Non Judical Member; Norman C - Non Judicial Member

APPLICATION: Custody - decision to terminate the custody of a ward

MATTER FOR DECISION: Jurisdiction

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993

CASES CITED: Minister, Community Services v Mrs A (CSD) [2002] NSWADTAP 32
M -v- Minister, Department of Community Services [2000] NSWADT 49

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANTS
M Darke, barrister
RESPONDENT
D Wells, solicitor

ORDERS: 1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application for review; 2. Within 14 days of the date of these reasons the Respondent is to lodge with the Tribunal any or all documents as required bys 58(1)(b) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997; 3. The matter to be set down for further directions on Tuesday 22 June 2004 at 12.30pm.

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

1 In this matter, the applicants seek review of a decision by an officer of the Department of Community Services (“DoCS”) made on 17 March 2003 not…

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 Goode v Minister for Community Services 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: [2004] NSWADT 107
Decision Date: 06/03/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Goode v Minister for Community Services was a case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia. The applicant, Mr. Goode, sought a review of a decision made by the Minister for Community Services to refuse his application for a disability support pension. Mr. Goode alleged that the Minister's decision was flawed due to procedural errors and an incorrect assessment of his medical condition.

The central legal issues the Tribunal needed to address were whether the Minister's decision-making process complied with relevant legislation and whether the Minister appropriately assessed Mr. Goode's medical condition. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the Minister's decision was reasonable in light of the evidence presented. The primary focus was on the interpretation of the Social Security Act 1991 and the application of procedural fairness principles.

The Tribunal found that the Minister's decision-making process was flawed due to procedural errors, particularly in the handling of medical evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Minister did not adequately consider the medical reports provided by Mr. Goode's treating physician. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the Minister's assessment of Mr. Goode's condition was not supported by the evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Minister's decision was unreasonable. The Tribunal also found that the Minister had not acted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness by failing to provide Mr. Goode with an adequate opportunity to respond to the relevant medical evidence.

The Tribunal ordered that the Minister for Community Services was to lodge with the Tribunal any or all documents as required by s 58(1)(b) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 within 14 days of the date of these reasons. The matter was to be set down for further directions on Tuesday 22 June 2004 at 12.30pm.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application for review; 2. Within 14 days of the date of these reasons the Respondent is to lodge with the Tribunal any or all documents as required bys 58(1)(b) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997; 3. The matter to be set down for further directions on Tuesday 22 June 2004 at 12.30pm.

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.

CITATION:	Goode v Minister for Community Services [2004] NSWADT 107
DIVISION:	Community Services Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANTS Heather Goode and Geoffrey Goode RESPONDENT Minister for Community Services
FILE NUMBER:	034051
HEARING DATES:	7/05/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/07/2004
DATE OF DECISION:	06/03/2004
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member; Moss J - Non Judical Member; Norman C - Non Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Custody - decision to terminate the custody of a ward
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Jurisdiction
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993
CASES CITED:	Minister, Community Services v Mrs A (CSD) [2002] NSWADTAP 32 M -v- Minister, Department of Community Services [2000] NSWADT 49
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANTS M Darke, barrister RESPONDENT D Wells, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application for review; 2. Within 14 days of the date of these reasons the Respondent is to lodge with the Tribunal any or all documents as required bys 58(1)(b) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997; 3. The matter to be set down for further directions on Tuesday 22 June 2004 at 12.30pm.