GTX v Children's Guardian - [2025] NSWCATAD 278

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: GTX v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 278
Hearing dates: 25 September 2025, 3 November 2025 and 4 November 2025
Date of orders: 13 November 2025
Decision date: 13 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: A Starke, Senior Member
J Herberte, General Member
Decision:
The decision of the Children’s Guardian dated 20 December 2024 to place an Interim Bar on the applicant’s working with children check clearance is affirmed pending finalisation of the Children’s Guardian’s risk assessment.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Application for review under s 27(3) of Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 — Interim Bar placed on the applicant’s clearance pending a risk assessment to decide whether the clearance should be reinstated or cancelled — Report made by former foster child that she had been sexually assaulted by the applicant and an allegation that the applicant’s ex-wife failed to act protectively towards the child — Tribunal to assess whether applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AYU v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69
BFX v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115
BHY v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 91
BJB v The Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164
BKE v Office of Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214
Children’s Guardian v BRL [2016] NSWSC 1206
Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949
Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111
Commissioner for Children and Young People v IK [2005] NSWSC 1136
CRG v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 295
CTE v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 28
CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338
CYY v Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 262
DAI v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 308
Drake v Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60
DYH v Public Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 136
FZ v Commissioner for Children and Young Persons [2010] NSWSC 1144
ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 162
McDonald v Guardianship and Administration Board [1993] VR 521
Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184
Tilley v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174
VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 789
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
ZZ v Secretary, Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: GTX (Applicant)
Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McCallum (Applicant)
B Dean (Respondent)

Solicitors:
T Elliot-Orr (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00249659
Publication restriction:
With the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or broadcast of the name of any person mentioned in…

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 GTX 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 278
Decision Date: 13 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of GTX v Children's Guardian, the applicant, GTX, sought a review of the decision made by the Children’s Guardian to place an interim bar on his clearance for working with children. This decision was based on a report from a former foster child alleging that GTX had sexually assaulted her, and a further allegation that GTX’s ex-wife did not take adequate protective action towards the child. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether GTX posed a risk to the safety of children.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Children’s Guardian had acted lawfully and reasonably in placing an interim bar on GTX's working with children clearance pending a full risk assessment. The court needed to consider the evidence provided, the statutory framework under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, and the principles of administrative law, including the requirement for a fair and unbiased assessment of the risks involved.

The tribunal examined the evidence presented, including the allegations made by the former foster child, and weighed this against the statutory obligations and procedural fairness required by the Act. The court found that the Children’s Guardian had acted within their statutory powers in placing an interim bar on GTX's clearance. The decision to await the outcome of the risk assessment was deemed reasonable, given the serious nature of the allegations and the potential risk to children's safety. The tribunal concluded that the interim measure was justified and affirmed the decision of the Children’s Guardian.

The court’s final order was that the decision of the Children’s Guardian dated 20 December 2024 to place an interim bar on GTX’s working with children clearance is affirmed. This decision will remain in effect pending the finalisation of the Children’s Guardian’s risk assessment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Children’s Guardian dated 20 December 2024 to place an Interim Bar on the applicant’s working with children check clearance is affirmed pending finalisation of the Children’s Guardian’s risk assessment.

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:	GTX v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 278
Hearing dates:	25 September 2025, 3 November 2025 and 4 November 2025
Date of orders:	13 November 2025
Decision date:	13 November 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	A Starke, Senior Member J Herberte, General Member
Decision:	The decision of the Children’s Guardian dated 20 December 2024 to place an Interim Bar on the applicant’s working with children check clearance is affirmed pending finalisation of the Children’s Guardian’s risk assessment.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Application for review under s 27(3) of Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 — Interim Bar placed on the applicant’s clearance pending a risk assessment to decide whether the clearance should be reinstated or cancelled — Report made by former foster child that she had been sexually assaulted by the applicant and an allegation that the applicant’s ex-wife failed to act protectively towards the child — Tribunal to assess whether applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	AYU v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69 BFX v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115 BHY v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 91 BJB v The Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164 BKE v Office of Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214 Children’s Guardian v BRL [2016] NSWSC 1206 Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949 Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111 Commissioner for Children and Young People v IK [2005] NSWSC 1136 CRG v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 295 CTE v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 28 CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338 CYY v Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 262 DAI v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 308 Drake v Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60 DYH v Public Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 136 FZ v Commissioner for Children and Young Persons [2010] NSWSC 1144 ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 162 McDonald v Guardianship and Administration Board [1993] VR 521 Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184 Tilley v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174 VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 789 YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 ZZ v Secretary, Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	GTX (Applicant) Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: K McCallum (Applicant) B Dean (Respondent) Solicitors: T Elliot-Orr (Applicant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/00249659
Publication restriction:	With the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or broadcast of the name of any person mentioned in…