REF and SJP v Chief Executive Officer, Territory Families

REF and SJP, the parents of PG, sought judicial review of a decision by Territory Families, a body corporate under the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, to transition PG, a child, from the care of the parents to the care of the child's maternal grandparents. The parents brought the proceeding against the Chief Executive Officer of Territory Families, the delegate of the decision-maker. The parents sought a quashing order in respect of the decision and, in the alternative, a declaration of the grounds upon which the decision was made. The parents argued that the decision was unreasonable and that they were not provided with reasons for the decision, contrary to the statutory requirement. The parents also sought a declaration that the decision to transition the child was not in the child’s best interests and sought an order for costs. The court considered whether the decision was unreasonable and whether it complied with the statutory requirements regarding reasons. The court also considered the issue of costs in the context of the proceedings being discontinued.

The court held that the decision to transition PG was unreasonable and not in her best interests. The court found that the decision-maker did not provide the parents with reasons for the decision, contrary to the statutory requirement. The court found that the decision-maker did not have sufficient evidence to support the decision, did not consult with relevant experts, and did not consider the impact of the decision on the child. The court also found that the decision-maker did not have the authority to make the decision. The court quashed the decision and made a declaration to that effect. The court also held that the parents were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis, as the decision-maker acted unreasonably and the matter was resolved without a determination on the merits.

The court ordered that the decision to transition PG be quashed and that a declaration be made to that effect. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the parents’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding, taxed on an indemnity basis.