IS v Public Guardian & Ors

Case [2009] NSWADTAP 24


Appeal Panel - External


CITATION: IS v Public Guardian & Ors [2009] NSWADTAP 24
PARTIES:

APPELLANT
IS

FIRST RESPONDENT
Public Guardian

SECOND REPSONDENT
IT

THIRD RESPONDENT
IU

FOURTH RESPONDENT
IV

FIFTH RESPONDENT
IW

DECISON MAKER
Guardianship Tribunal
FILE NUMBER: 088012
HEARING DATES: 28 November 2008
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 28 November 2008
 
DATE OF DECISION: 

22 April 2009
BEFORE: Britton A - Deputy President; Higgins S - Judicial Member; Bolt M - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: power of attorney - review of leave to appeal on other grounds - procedural fairness
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: C/35545
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 09/17/2008
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Guardianship Act 1987
Powers of Attorney Act 2003
CASES CITED: Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123
Carew v Protective Commissioner and Ors [2005] NSWADTAP 13
GM v Protective Commissioner & Ors [2003] NSWADTAP 59
JT and Anor v Protective Commissioner & Ors [2004] NSWADTAP 13
KA v Public Guardian & Ors [2004] NSWADTAP 25
KW & Ors v KV & Ors (No.2) [2004] NSWADTAP 48
Li v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 19; (2000) 96 FCR 125
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
TP v TR & ors (No 2) [2006] NSWADTAP 12
REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT
IS' husband, Agent

FIRST RESPONDENT
No appearance

SECOND RESPONDENT
S Newell, solicitor

THIRD RESPONDENT
In person

FOURTH RESPONDENT
No appearance

Decision maker
E Cho, solicitor
ORDERS: 1.The decision to revoke IS’ appointment as enduring guardian made by the Guardianship Tribunal on 4 July 2008 is affirmed
2. The guardianship order in relation to IT made by the Guardianship Tribunal on 4 July 2008 is affirmed
3. The order of the Guardianship Tribunal made under the Powers of Attorney Act 2003 on 4 July 2008 is set aside
4. The power of attorney decision is remitted to the Tribunal as originally or similarly constituted for redetermination in accordance with these reasons.


1 The appellant, who we will refer to in these reasons by the pseudonym ‘IS’, appeals against three decisions made by the Guardianship Tribunal. These are, the decisions to revoke her appointment as her mother’s enduring guardian, to appoint the Public Guardian as her mother’s guardian, and not disturb the enduring power of attorney (‘POA’) executed by her mother in February 2006.

2 The appellant’s mother, the subject person of this appeal, is 80 years of age and suffers from dementia. She is a permanent resident in a residential aged care facility. In these reasons she will be referred to by the pseudonym ‘IT’.

3 All references in these reasons to ‘the Tribunal’ are to the NSW Guardianship Tribunal.

Representation

4 Solicitor, Mr Stephen Newell of the Aged Care Rights Service was appointed under s 71(4) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to represent IT in these proceedings.

5 In these proceedings, IS was represented by her husband acting in the role of agent.

6…

Continue reading IS v Public Guardian & Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Is v Public Guardian [2009] NSWADTAP 24
Case
[2009] NSWADTAP 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of IS v Public Guardian & Ors, the applicant, IS, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Western Australia from a decision of the Guardianship Tribunal. The Tribunal had revoked IS' appointment as enduring guardian of IT, a process which involved reviewing the legality and fairness of the Tribunal's decision-making process. The central dispute focused on whether the Guardianship Tribunal had applied its mind to the relevant material and whether the process was fair.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Guardianship Tribunal had failed to consider relevant material, and if it had, whether the failure constituted a breach of procedural fairness. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not properly considered certain evidence and submissions, and that this failure amounted to a breach of natural justice. The court was required to determine if the Tribunal's procedural errors were substantial enough to warrant setting aside the decision.

The court held that while the Guardianship Tribunal had considered some of the relevant material, it had failed to consider other significant evidence. This failure meant that the Tribunal had not applied its mind to all relevant material, which was a fundamental requirement of procedural fairness. Consequently, the court found that the Guardianship Tribunal's decision was flawed. As a result, the decision to revoke IS' appointment as enduring guardian and the guardianship order in relation to IT were affirmed, but the power of attorney decision was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination in accordance with the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The decision to revoke IS' appointment as enduring guardian made by the Guardianship Tribunal on 4 July 2008 is affirmed 2. The guardianship order in relation to IT made by the Guardianship Tribunal on 4 July 2008 is affirmed 3. The order of the Guardianship Tribunal made under the Powers of Attorney Act 2003 on 4 July 2008 is set aside 4. The power of attorney decision is remitted to the Tribunal as originally or similarly constituted for redetermination in accordance with these reasons.

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.