Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: GVD v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 251 Hearing dates: 4 September 2025 Date of orders: 3 October 2025 Decision date: 03 October 2025 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Starke, Senior Member
M Bolt, General MemberDecision: (1) The determination of the Children’s Guardian dated 4 December 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a working with children check clearance on the grounds that he is a disqualified person under s 18(1)(a) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW), is affirmed.
(2) The application is dismissed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Application for review under s 28(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) – Applicant a disqualified person – Whether the person poses a risk to the safety of children
Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Amendment Act 2022 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AYU v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69
CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214
Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949
CRG v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 295
CTE v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 28
CYY v Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 262
CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338
BFX v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115
BKE v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523
DAI v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 308
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] 1 VR 63
EOL v Children’s Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 146
Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506
FDS v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 374
FVC v Childen’s Guardian [2023] NSWCATAD 129
ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 162
McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2005) 145 FCR 70
Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184
PGR v Secretary, Department of Justice and Regulation (No 2) [2017] VSC 514
Sinclair v Maryborough Mining Warden (1975) 132 CLR 473
VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 789
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: GVD (Applicant)
Children’s Guardian (Respondent)Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/00001307 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 these proceedings or referred to in the documentary material lodged in these proceedings is prohibited. This order is made under section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
Note: 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
Introduction and overview
-
In this case, the applicant asked the Tribunal to administratively review…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read GVD 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWCATAD 251
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Children's Guardian's decision to refuse the applicant a working with children check clearance was lawful and reasonable. This involved examining the evidence presented to the Guardian, the statutory framework under which the decision was made, and whether there was any error of law or unreasonableness in the decision-making process. The applicant argued that the evidence did not substantiate the claim that he posed a risk to children, and that the Guardian had misapplied the statutory criteria.
The court reviewed the statutory provisions and the evidence provided to the Guardian, determining that the Guardian's decision was both lawful and reasonable. The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant was a disqualified person under the Act, as it demonstrated a significant risk to children's safety. The applicant's submissions did not successfully challenge the adequacy or correctness of the evidence or the application of the statutory criteria by the Guardian.
Consequently, the court upheld the Guardian's decision and dismissed the application for review. The determination that the applicant was a disqualified person was affirmed, and the application for a working with children check clearance was denied.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The determination of the Children’s Guardian dated 4 December 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a working with children check clearance on the grounds that he is a disqualified person under s 18(1)(a) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW), 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.