GR v Secretary, Department of Families, Disabilities and Community Services (No 2)

Case

[2020] NSWCA 198

28 August 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
GR v Secretary, Department of Families, Disabilities and Community Services (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 198 [2020] NSWCA 198 28 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought leave to appeal from interlocutory orders made by Robb J, Kunc J, and Slattery J in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the applicant's access to the *parens patriae* jurisdiction of the court, with the applicant's applications for relief in this jurisdiction being refused by the primary judges. These refusals were in the context of final care orders having been made by the Children's Court, and the relief sought by the applicant would have had the effect of reversing those orders. A separate statutory appeal from the Children's Court orders was already pending in the Equity Division.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether to grant the applicant leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders. This involved considering whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify an appeal against decisions that had refused access to the *parens patriae* jurisdiction, particularly when those decisions were made in light of existing Children's Court orders and a pending statutory appeal. The Court also had to consider the applicant's history of applications and their adherence to procedural requirements.

Basten and McCallum JJA refused the application for leave to appeal. Their Honours reasoned that the applicant had not established any error in the interlocutory orders made by the primary judges. The Court found that the applicant's repeated applications and disregard of procedural requirements suggested an abuse of process, and that the relief sought was unlikely to succeed. The Court noted that the applicant's attempts to access the *parens patriae* jurisdiction were constrained by the existing statutory framework and the final orders made by the Children's Court.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the application for leave to appeal be refused. The applicant was also ordered to pay the first and second respondents’ costs in the Court of Appeal, reflecting their common representation.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Civil Procedure

  • Equity & Trusts

Legal Concepts

  • Abuse of Process

  • Appeal

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Costs

  • Standing