Is v Protective Commissioner

Case [2005] NSWADTAP 8


Appeal Panel - External


CITATION: IS v Protective Commissioner & Ors [2005] NSWADTAP 8
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.
PARTIES: APPELLANT
IS
FIRST RESPONDENT
Protective Commissioner
SECOND RESPONDENT
IT
THIRD RESPONDENT
Guardianship Tribunal
FILE NUMBER: 048021
HEARING DATES: 18/02/2005
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 02/18/2005
DATE OF DECISION:
03/17/2005
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Guardianship Tribunal 2004/4103
BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Leal S - Judicial Member; Mericourt B - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: Financial management order - revocation - No error of law
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: C/25188; Matter 2002/4127
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 10/13/2004
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Guardianship Act 1987
CASES CITED: Moore v Guardianship and Administration Board [1990] VR 902
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 149
K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052; S v S [2001] NSWSC 146
Re R [2000] NSWSC 886 (17 August 2000)
REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
In person
FIRST RESPONDENT
No appearance
SECOND RESPONDENT
S Corry, solicitor
THIRD RESPONDENT
Guardianship Tribunal
ORDERS: The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal made on 13 October 2004 in relation to IS is affirmed.
    Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies to this decision.
    Section 126 provides
    (1A) This section applies only to the following:

      (a) proceedings in the Community Services Division of the Tribunal,

      (b) appeals to an Appeal Panel from a decision made by the Tribunal in the Community Services Division,

      (b1) proceedings in relation to an external appeal made under section 67A of the Guardianship Act 1987 or section 21A of the Protected Estates Act 1983,

      (b2) proceedings in relation to a reviewable decision made under the Guardianship Act 1987 or the Protected Estates Act 1983

      (c) such other proceedings (or class or classes of proceedings) as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.


    (1) A person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, publish or broadcast the name of any person:

      (a) who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or

      (b) to whom any proceedings before the Tribunal relate, or

      (c) who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings before the Tribunal,


    whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of.
    Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
    (2) This section does not prohibit the publication or broadcasting of an official report of the proceedings that includes the name of any person the publication or broadcasting of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section.
    (3) For the purposes of this section, 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.

Introduction

1 IS is a 79 year old gentleman living independently in his own home. In the recent past he was engaged in some property transactions…

Continue reading Is v Protective Commissioner

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Is v Protective Commissioner [2005] NSWADTAP 8
Case
[2005] NSWADTAP 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute regarding the revocation of a financial management order pertaining to a person identified as IS. The case was heard and decided in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around whether the decision of the Guardianship Tribunal, which was made on 13 October 2004 and related to the revocation of the financial management order, was legally sound. The appellant in this case sought to challenge the tribunal's decision, arguing that it was flawed in some respect.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the Guardianship Tribunal had erred in law when it revoked the financial management order. The appellant contended that the tribunal had not properly considered all relevant factors and that the decision lacked sufficient evidence to justify the revocation. The court needed to examine the tribunal's process, the evidence it relied upon, and the application of the relevant legal principles to ascertain whether there was any legal error.

The court meticulously reviewed the tribunal's decision and the evidence it had considered. It found that the tribunal had indeed taken into account all relevant factors and had made its decision based on appropriate legal principles. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to support the tribunal's conclusion. Consequently, the court determined that there was no error of law in the tribunal's decision, and it upheld the revocation of the financial management order. As a result, the decision of the Guardianship Tribunal dated 13 October 2004, in relation to IS, was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal made on 13 October 2004 in relation to IS is affirmed.

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.