LP v P

Case [2018] NSWSC 1168 2 August 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: LP v P & Ors [2018] NSWSC 1168
Hearing dates: 23 – 24 May 2018
Date of orders: 02 August 2018
Decision date: 02 August 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hallen J
Decision:
Orders that the Amended Summons be dismissed.
Stands over the proceedings to a date to be fixed at the time of publishing these reasons, to give the parties the opportunity to finalise, with the NSW Trustee and Guardian, the matters referred to in Ex. D and to reach agreement on how the costs of the proceedings are to be paid.
Catchwords: MENTAL HEALTH — Protected person — Appointment made in 2012 for financial manager of estate — Application by mother of protected person that the financial manager be removed and that a new nominated financial manager be appointed — Principles governing change of financial manager — Paramount consideration remains welfare, and interests, of protected person — Prudential management requires flexibility, consultation and respect for autonomy.
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Ability One Financial Management Pty Limited v JB by his Tutor AB [2014] NSWSC 245
Application of J & K [2009] NSWSC 1453
L v L [2014] NSWSC 1686
MB v Protective Commissioner (2000) 50 NSWLR 24; [2000] NSWSC 717
PB v BB [2013] NSWSC 1223
Re LSC and GC [2016] NSWSC 1896
Re S, An Incapacitated Young Person [2017] NSWSC 859
Re TLH, a protected person [2017] NSWSC 737
SLJ v RTJ [2017] NSWSC 137
M v M [2013] NSWSC 1495
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: LP (Plaintiff)
L by his tutor Perpetual Trustee Company Limited (first Defendant)
KP (second Defendant)
WP (third Defendant)
MP (fourth Defendant)
AP (fifth Defendant)
MiP (sixth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr R Wilson SC (Plaintiff)
Mr M K Meek SC (first Defendant)
Mr C A Lambert (second – sixth Defendants)
Ms J Brouwer (NSW Trustee & Guardian)
Solicitors:
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Makinson d’Apice Lawyers (first Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/54874

Judgment

Introduction

HIS HONOUR: At the outset, having regard to the legal status of the first Defendant as a protected person, an order prohibiting the publication, or disclosure of the name of the parties, or any details from within the court file, or from the evidence in the proceedings, that either identifies, or tends to identify, him, has been made.
Somewhat impersonally, I have assigned an initial to the first Defendant, and initials to the other parties, who are all members of his family, in place of the names of each. Hereafter, I shall refer to each of them by the initial, or initials, throughout these reasons: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), s 7(a).
The proceedings, which are in the Protective List of this Court, concern a 37 year old man, L, who, as the parties all agree, lacks…

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 LP v P

Details

AGLC: LP v P [2018] NSWSC 1168
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1168
Decision Date: 02 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of LP v P involved a protected person, LP, and the respondent, P, LP’s mother, who sought to have the financial manager of LP’s estate removed and a new financial manager appointed. LP was declared a protected person in 2012, and P was appointed as the financial manager of LP’s estate. The application to change the financial manager was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court were whether the welfare and interests of the protected person, LP, would be better served by changing the financial manager and, if so, whether the court should appoint a new financial manager.

The court held that the paramount consideration in any decision regarding the welfare and interests of a protected person is the welfare and interests of that person. The court also emphasised the importance of prudential management of a protected person’s estate, which requires flexibility, consultation, and respect for the autonomy of the protected person. The court considered the evidence presented and found that the welfare and interests of LP would be better served by removing P as the financial manager and appointing a new financial manager. The court noted that the relationship between LP and P had deteriorated, and that P had not consulted with LP in making financial decisions for her estate. The court also found that P had not acted in the best interests of LP in managing her estate.

The court appointed a new financial manager for LP’s estate, subject to LP’s approval, and ordered that P be removed as the financial manager. The court also ordered that the costs of the application be paid by P. The court’s decision highlights the importance of the welfare and interests of the protected person in any decision regarding the management of their estate, and the need for flexibility, consultation, and respect for the autonomy of the protected person in prudential management of their estate.

Orders