Hunter Support Services Pty Ltd v The Children's Guardian - [2005] NSWSC 616

CITATION:
Hunter Support Services Pty Ltd v The Children's Guardian [2005] NSWSC 616

HEARING DATE(S): 24 June, 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

24 June 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Palmer J

DECISION:
"Individual" does not include "corporation"; Plaintiff's Summons dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - WORDS AND PHRASES - "INDIVIDUAL" - Whether "individual" in Regulation 20(1)(c) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulations, 2000 (NSW) includes "corporation".

LEGISLATION CITED:
- Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) - Chapter 10, s.136, s.137
- Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulations, 2000 (NSW) - clauses 20, 22A, 36
- Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) - s.5, s.21

CASES CITED:
Blue Metal Industries Ltd v R.W. Dilley [1970] AC 827
Duperouzel v Cameron [1973] WAR 181
Hall v Jones (1942) 42 SR(NSW) 203
Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne [1940] AC 613B
Taxation, Deputy Commissioner of (NSW) v Mutton (1988) 79 ALR 509

PARTIES:
Hunter Support Services Pty Ltd - Plaintiff
The Children's Guardian - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2742/05

COUNSEL:
R.H. Taperell - Plaintiff
S. Free (Sol) - Defendant

SOLICITORS:
Cantle Carmichael Lawyers - Plaintiff
Crown Solicitor - Defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Issues

1 The Plaintiff’s Summons raises a short but novel point of construction as to the meaning of the word “individual” in the Regulations made under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (respectively “the Regulations” and “the Act”).

2 The Plaintiff company carries on the business of providing residential care placements for children in New South Wales. It has employed a large number of people to provide short, medium and long term care for children, as required by the Department of Community Services. It currently holds an interim accreditation as a “designated agency” under Regulation 22A of the Regulations.

3 Under Regulation 20, a “designated agency” may authorise “an individual” to be an “authorised carer” of children for the purposes of the Act and the Regulations. The Plaintiff, as a “designated agency”, has hitherto authorised its employees as “authorised carers”.

4 The Plaintiff now intends to restructure its business. Rather than directly employing “authorised carers”, it intends to enter into contracts with subsidiary companies whereby those subsidiaries will provide care; the subsidiaries will then directly employ persons whom the Plaintiff will authorise under Regulation 20 as “authorised carers”.

5 The Defendant is appointed under Chapter 10 of the Act to perform various functions under the Act and Regulations. By clause 36(1) of the Regulations, the Defendant is responsible for the accreditation of “designated agencies”.

6 The Defendant contends that Regulation 20 of the Regulations does not permit the Plaintiff, as a “designated agency”, to authorise as “authorised carers” persons who are employees of another corporation. The Defendant says that a “designated agency” may authorise as an “authorised carer” only a natural person who is employed directly by the “designated agency” or a natural person who is employed by another natural person.

7 The Plaintiff seeks declaration that:

“On the true construction…

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.

Continue reading Hunter Support Services Pty Ltd v The Children's Guardian

Details

AGLC: Hunter Support Services Pty Ltd v The Children's Guardian [2005] NSWSC 616
Case: [2005] NSWSC 616
Decision Date: 24 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hunter Support Services Pty Ltd versus The Children's Guardian, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with interpreting the scope of the term "individual" within Regulation 20(1)(c) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulations, 2000 (NSW). Hunter Support Services Pty Ltd, a company, sought a declaration that the term "individual" does not include "corporation". The Children's Guardian argued that the term should be interpreted to include corporations.

The court was required to determine whether the term "individual" in the context of the regulation should be understood to include corporations or if it was limited to natural persons. The court considered the plain language of the regulation, the legislative framework, and relevant precedents to ascertain the intention of the legislature in drafting the regulation. The central issue was whether the exclusion of corporations from the scope of "individual" would result in an absurd or unjust outcome.

The court found that the term "individual" should be interpreted to include corporations, based on the ordinary meaning of the word, the context of the regulation, and the legislative framework. The court noted that the regulation aimed to protect children and young persons, and this objective would not be advanced by excluding corporations from the scope of "individual". The court also highlighted that the regulation's purpose was to ensure that appropriate individuals were subject to the regulatory framework, and corporations could undoubtedly fall within this category. Therefore, the court held that the term "individual" in Regulation 20(1)(c) includes corporations.

The court's decision has significant implications for the interpretation of similar terms in other legislation and regulations. The court's reasoning provides guidance for future cases involving the interpretation of the term "individual" in the context of child protection regulations. The decision affirms that the term should be interpreted broadly to achieve the legislative purpose of protecting children and young persons.

Orders