SH v Protective Commissioner

Case [2006] NSWADTAP 4


Appeal Panel - External


CITATION: SH v Protective Commissioner and Ors [2006] NSWADTAP 4
PARTIES: APPELLANT
SH
FIRST RESPONDENT
Protective Commissioner
SECOND RESPONDENT
SI
THIRD RESPONDENT AND DECISION MAKER
Guardianship Tribunal
FILE NUMBER: 058014
HEARING DATES: 15/11/2005
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 11/15/2005
 
DATE OF DECISION: 

02/08/2006
BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Leal S - Judicial Member; Mericourt B - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: Financial management order - making
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: C/30001
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 07/25/2005
LEGISLATION CITED: Guardianship Act 1987
CASES CITED: Holt v Anor v Protective Commissioner (1993) 31 NSWLR 227
JT and Anor v Protective Commissioner & Ors [2004] NSWADTAP 13
K v K [2000) NSWSC 1052
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
REPRESENTATION:

APPELLANT
In person

FIRST RESPONDENT
No appearance
SECOND RESPONDENT
No appearance
THIRD RESPONDENT AND DECISION MAKER
E Cho, Solicitor
COUNSEL ASSISTING
S Free, Solicitor
ORDERS: Appeal dismissed
    Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies to this decision.
    Section 126 provides
    (1A) This section applies only to the following:

      (a) proceedings in the Community Services Division of the Tribunal,

      (b) appeals to an Appeal Panel from a decision made by the Tribunal in the Community Services Division,

      (b1) proceedings in relation to an external appeal made under section 67A of the Guardianship Act 1987 or section 21A of the Protected Estates Act 1983,

      (b2) proceedings in relation to a reviewable decision made under the Guardianship Act 1987 or the Protected Estates Act 1983

      (c) such other proceedings (or class or classes of proceedings) as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.


    (1) A person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, publish or broadcast the name of any person:

      (a) who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or

      (b) to whom any proceedings before the Tribunal relate, or

      (c) who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings before the Tribunal,


    whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of.
    Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
    (2) This section does not prohibit the publication or broadcasting of an official report of the proceedings that includes the name of any person the publication or broadcasting of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section.
    (3) For the purposes of this section, a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

    REASONS FOR DECISION

    1 SI is a 71 year old woman who lives in a flat attached to her own home with her son, her son’s wife and their children. She has been diagnosed with a mild cognitive impairment and short term memory loss. SI is unable to manage her financial affairs apart from her day to day expenditure. Many years ago SI and her son borrowed…

Continue reading SH v Protective Commissioner

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SH v Protective Commissioner [2006] NSWADTAP 4
Case
[2006] NSWADTAP 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SH v Protective Commissioner involved a dispute between the applicant, SH, and the respondent, the Protective Commissioner. SH sought to challenge a financial management order that was imposed on her by the respondent, arguing that it was unreasonable and oppressive. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the financial management order was justified and whether it constituted an unreasonable interference with SH's personal liberty and property rights. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions governing the making of financial management orders, as well as the principles of natural justice and proportionality.

In its decision, the court found that the financial management order was both justified and proportionate. It determined that the order was necessary to protect SH's interests due to her inability to manage her own financial affairs effectively. The court further held that the order did not constitute an unreasonable interference with SH's personal liberty or property rights, as it was tailored to her specific circumstances and aimed to provide her with the necessary support and protection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the financial management order remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.