GQV v Children's Guardian - [2025] NSWCATAD 205

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: GQV v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 205
Hearing dates: 5 May 2025
Date of orders: 15 August 2025
Decision date: 15 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J McAteer, Senior Member
K Stubbs, General Member
Decision:
(1) The decision of the respondent dated 18 September 2024 to refuse the applicant’s Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed.
(2) The application is dismissed.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – child protection – working with children – risk to children whether risk real and appreciable–– circumstances of allegations –weight of evidence of risk – current risk – evidence of behaviour that could harm children

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 (Repealed)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012
Child Protection (Working with Children) Regulation 2013
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:
ADV v Commission for Children and Young People [2012] NSWADT 8
AYU v NSW Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69
BFC v The Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 90
BFX v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115
BJB v Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 111
BJB v The Children's Guardian (No. 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164
BKE v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523
Children's Guardian v CXZ [2019] NSWSC 1083
Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949; 56 NSWLR 476
Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111
CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA; (1979) 46 FLR 409
M v M (1988) 166 CLR (HCA)
Makita v Sprowles NSWCA [2005] 305
Office of the Children’s Guardian v CFW [2016] NSWSC 1406
R v Commission for Children and Young People [2002] NSWIRComm 101
Re: Control Investments Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88.

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: GQV (Applicant)
Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Chiam (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Applicant (Self-represented)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00364558
Publication restriction:
Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal restricts disclosure of the name of the applicant, any children, victims, or of evidence given and received in the Tribunal hearing or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons, or any risk of harm reporter or any non-expert witness.

Pursuant to s 64 (1) (b) and (c) the Tribunal makes an order in respect of the paragraphs marked ‘Not for Publication’ being: [52] – [58] inclusive.

(b) prohibiting or restricting the publication or broadcast of any report, including a sound recording or transcript, of proceedings in the Tribunal,
(c) prohibiting or restricting the publication of evidence given before the Tribunal, whether in public or in private, or of matters contained in documents lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal.

REASONS FOR decision

Introduction

This applicant seeks administrative review of a…

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 GQV v Children's Guardian 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: [2025] NSWCATAD 205
Decision Date: 15 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, GQV, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Children's Guardian, to refuse GQV a Working with Children Check Clearance. The refusal was based on an assessment that there was a real and appreciable risk that GQV's conduct could harm a child. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Children's Guardian's decision to refuse the Working with Children Check Clearance was lawful, reasonable, and justified in the circumstances. This involved examining the weight of evidence regarding the risk to children, the circumstances of the allegations, and the current risk posed by GQV. The court also needed to determine if the evidence of GQV's behaviour that could harm children was sufficient to support the decision.

The court found that the Children's Guardian's decision was supported by the evidence presented. The Guardian had conducted a thorough assessment, considering the nature and weight of the evidence against GQV, the circumstances of the allegations, and the current risk posed. The evidence demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that posed a real and appreciable risk to children. The court concluded that the decision was lawful, reasonable, and justified. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the decision of the Children's Guardian was affirmed.

The court ordered that the decision of the Children's Guardian dated 18 September 2024 to refuse the applicant's Working with Children Check Clearance be affirmed. The applicant's application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The decision of the respondent dated 18 September 2024 to refuse the applicant’s Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed.

(2) The application is dismissed.

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:	GQV v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 205
Hearing dates:	5 May 2025
Date of orders:	15 August 2025
Decision date:	15 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	J McAteer, Senior Member K Stubbs, General Member
Decision:	(1) The decision of the respondent dated 18 September 2024 to refuse the applicant’s Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed. (2) The application is dismissed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – child protection – working with children – risk to children whether risk real and appreciable–– circumstances of allegations –weight of evidence of risk – current risk – evidence of behaviour that could harm children
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 (Repealed) Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 Child Protection (Working with Children) Regulation 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	ADV v Commission for Children and Young People [2012] NSWADT 8 AYU v NSW Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69 BFC v The Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 90 BFX v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115 BJB v Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 111 BJB v The Children's Guardian (No. 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164 BKE v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523 Children's Guardian v CXZ [2019] NSWSC 1083 Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949; 56 NSWLR 476 Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111 CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA; (1979) 46 FLR 409 M v M (1988) 166 CLR (HCA) Makita v Sprowles NSWCA [2005] 305 Office of the Children’s Guardian v CFW [2016] NSWSC 1406 R v Commission for Children and Young People [2002] NSWIRComm 101 Re: Control Investments Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88.
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	GQV (Applicant) Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: C Chiam (Respondent) Solicitors: Applicant (Self-represented) Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00364558
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal restricts disclosure of the name of the applicant, any children, victims, or of evidence given and received in the Tribunal hearing or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons, or any risk of harm reporter or any non-expert witness. Pursuant to s 64 (1) (b) and (c) the Tribunal makes an order in respect of the paragraphs marked ‘Not for Publication’ being: [52] – [58] inclusive. (b) prohibiting or restricting the publication or broadcast of any report, including a sound recording or transcript, of proceedings in the Tribunal, (c) prohibiting or restricting the publication of evidence given before the Tribunal, whether in public or in private, or of matters contained in documents lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal.