Re PQR and the Protected Estates Act 1983

The case before the court involved a dispute over the management of the estate of a protected person, PQR, under the Protected Estates Act 1983. The Supreme Court of New South Wales had made an order for the management of PQR's estate, which was later challenged by an inconsistent order made by the Australian Capital Territory tribunal. The court was required to determine whether the New South Wales order could be revoked and if the assets of PQR's estate should be paid to the managers appointed under the Australian Capital Territory order. Additionally, the court needed to decide how to resolve the conflict between the two orders, considering the principles of full faith and credit.

The court examined whether the New South Wales order could be revoked due to the inconsistency with the Australian Capital Territory order. It also considered whether the Protective Commissioner should be directed to pay all assets of PQR's estate to the managers appointed under the Australian Capital Territory order. The court noted the importance of resolving the conflict between the two orders in a way that gave full faith and credit to both jurisdictions. The court had to ensure that the interests of the protected person, PQR, were protected and that the legal principles governing the management of protected estates were upheld.

In its reasoning, the court held that the New South Wales order could not be revoked due to the inconsistency with the Australian Capital Territory order, as the New South Wales court had jurisdiction over the protected person's estate. The court found that the Australian Capital Territory order did not have the effect of revoking the New South Wales order, as the two orders dealt with different aspects of the management of PQR's estate. The court also determined that the Protective Commissioner should not be directed to pay all assets of PQR's estate to the managers appointed under the Australian Capital Territory order, as this would undermine the jurisdiction of the New South Wales court. The court concluded that the inconsistency between the two orders should be resolved by giving full faith and credit to both jurisdictions, ensuring that the interests of the protected person, PQR, were protected.

The court ordered that the New South Wales order for the management of PQR's estate should remain in place and that the Protective Commissioner should not be directed to pay all assets of PQR's estate to the managers appointed under the Australian Capital Territory order. The court further directed that the interests of the protected person, PQR, should be protected and that the legal principles governing the management of protected estates should be upheld. The court's decision ensured that the conflict between the two orders was resolved in a way that gave full faith and credit to both jurisdictions, while protecting the interests of the protected person, PQR.