Julie (a pseudonym) v John (a pseudonym) (No 2)

Julie, a pseudonym, brought proceedings against John, another pseudonym, seeking financial management orders under the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW). This followed an appeal against orders of the Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Julie's application sought a financial management order for her sister, who was the third defendant, on the basis that she was incapable of managing her own affairs. The proceedings came before the Supreme Court, which exercised its protective jurisdiction to consider the application.

The court needed to decide several legal issues, including whether the applicant's repeated correspondence with the judge's chambers was relevant to the application, whether the court could act on material that was not strictly admissible under the rules of evidence, and whether the applicant's failure to comply with case management orders justified dismissal of the proceedings. Another issue was whether the applicant could conduct the hearing via audio-visual link from China and call oral evidence from witnesses who had not been subpoenaed.

The court found that the applicant's correspondence revealed actuating purposes that were unrelated to the application's purpose. The court exercised its discretion under its protective jurisdiction to act on material that was rationally probative of the material facts and issues, even though it was excluded by the technical rules of evidence. The applicant failed to comply with case management orders, including providing affidavit material before the specified deadline, and did not seek leave to rely on oral evidence or other materials at the hearing. The applicant's request to conduct the hearing via audio-visual link from China was denied due to the lack of compliance with procedural fairness and the prejudice to the respondent. The application for a financial management order was dismissed.

The court made no order as to costs.