Orders for discharge of the NSW Trustee and Guardian as manager of the estate of a protected person, and for appointment of a member of the protected person's family as a private manager, with ancillary orders, including an order confirming that the estate of the defendant continue to be subject to management under the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW.
Catchwords:
GUARDIANSHIP - protected person - financial management - change of manager - order for discharge of management of NSW Trustee and Guardian - Order for appointment of member of family as private manager - principles governing a change of manager - paramount consideration remains protection of welfare, and interests, of protected person - prudential management requires flexibility, consultation with protected person and family, and respect for protected person's autonomy.
MENTAL HEALTH - protected person - appointment of manager of estate - change of manager - substitution of private manager for NSW Trustee and Guardian - principles governing change of manager - paramount consideration remains protection of welfare, and interests, of protected person - prudential management requires flexibility, consultation and respect for autonomy.
PRACTICE - NSW Trustee and Guardian Act - protected person - appointment of manager of estate - change of manager - substitution of private manager for NSW Trustee and Guardian - paramount consideration remains protection of welfare, and interests, of protected person - prudential management requires flexibility, consultation and respect for autonomy
[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 M v M
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
M v M [2013] NSWSC 1495
Case
[2013] NSWSC 1495
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of M v M, the court was asked to consider the management of a protected person's estate. The dispute arose between a protected person and the NSW Trustee and Guardian, which had been appointed as the estate's manager. The protected person sought the discharge of the NSW Trustee and Guardian and the appointment of a family member as the private manager of the estate. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the principles governing the change of manager of a protected person's estate required the substitution of a private manager for the NSW Trustee and Guardian. The court was required to balance the protected person's welfare and interests with the need for prudential management, which involves flexibility, consultation with the protected person and family, and respect for the protected person's autonomy.
The court found that the paramount consideration in determining whether to change the manager of a protected person's estate was the protection of the welfare and interests of the protected person. The court also emphasised the need for prudential management, which requires flexibility, consultation with the protected person and family, and respect for the protected person's autonomy. In this case, the court was satisfied that the appointment of a family member as the private manager would better serve the protected person's welfare and interests. The court discharged the NSW Trustee and Guardian and appointed the family member as the private manager of the estate.
The court's decision highlights the importance of protecting the welfare and interests of protected persons and the need for prudential management in the appointment and change of managers of protected persons' estates. The court also emphasised the importance of flexibility, consultation with the protected person and family, and respect for the protected person's autonomy in determining whether to change the manager of a protected person's estate.