TA v IA

Case [2017] NSWSC 1597 24 November 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: TA v IA [2017] NSWSC 1597
Hearing dates: 7 and 8 November 2017
Date of orders: 24 November 2017
Decision date: 24 November 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1. I declare, pursuant to s 41 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW) (the Act), that the defendant [IA] is incapable of managing his affairs in relation to his claim for compensation and conduct of District Court proceedings case number 767 of 2009 (the proceedings) arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 2 July 2007.
2. I order pursuant to ss 40 and 41(1)(a) of the Act that that part of the defendant’s estate relating to the defendant’s claim for compensation and conduct of the proceedings be subject to management under the Act.
3. I order pursuant to s 41(1)(b) of the Act that the NSW Trustee be appointed as manager of that part of the defendant’s estate relating to his claim for compensation and conduct of the proceedings.

Catchwords: MENTAL HEALTH – NSW Trustee and Guardian Act - Protected estate manager – Litigant in person – Appointment of NSW Trustee as manager of that part of the defendant’s estate relating to the defendant’s claim for compensation and conduct of District Court proceedings
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 14
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
New South Wales Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW), ss 38, 40, 41, 86
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 7.14, 23.4, 29.7, Pt 57
Cases Cited: A v A [2015] NSWSC 1778
A v A [2016] NSWCA 17
Dalle-Molle v Manos (2004) 88 SASR 193; [2004] SASC 102
Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423
Guthrie v Spence (2009) 78 NSWLR 225; [2009] NSWCA 369
H v H [2015] NSWSC 837
IA v TA (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 349
IA v TA (No 3) [2017] NSWCA 2017
IA v TA [2016] NSWCA 179
KF By Her Tutor RF v Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children known as the Children’s Hospital Westmead [2010] NSWSC 891
Mao v AMP Superannuation Ltd [2015] NSWCA 252
Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 1 WLR 1511; [2002] EWCA Civ 1889
Murphy v Doman (2003) 58 NSWLR 51; [2003] NSWCA 249
Re AAA; Report on a Protected Person’s Attainment of the Age of Majority [2016] NSWSC 805
Re W and L (Parameters of Protected Estate Management Orders) [2014] NSWSC 1106
Re WS [2017] NSWSC 745
Rowlands v State of New South Wales (2009) 74 NSWLR 715; [2009] NSWCA 136
Slaveski v Victoria (2009) 25 VR 160; [2009] VSC 596
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: TA (Plaintiff)
IA (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
W Fitzsimmons (Plaintiff)
No appearance for the Defendant
Solicitors:
Moray & Agnew (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2015/19513
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Before me for hearing on 7 and 8 November 2017 was an application, by further amended summons filed on 29 August 2016, for the…

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 TA v IA

Details

AGLC: Ta v IA [2017] NSWSC 1597
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1597
Decision Date: 24 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of TA v IA involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought to have the NSW Trustee appointed as a manager for a portion of the defendant's estate. This specific part of the estate was connected to the defendant's claim for compensation and the conduct of proceedings in the District Court. The plaintiff, representing themselves, argued that the defendant's mental health incapacitated them from managing their estate effectively, necessitating the intervention of a protected estate manager under the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act. The defendant contested the appointment, arguing they were capable of managing their affairs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's mental health condition was such that they required a protected estate manager to manage the part of their estate relevant to the compensation claim and District Court proceedings. The court had to consider the statutory criteria outlined in the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act to determine if the appointment of the Trustee was warranted. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the defendant's incapacity was so severe that they were unable to understand and manage their affairs effectively.

The court found that the defendant's mental health condition indeed met the criteria for the appointment of a protected estate manager. The evidence presented demonstrated that the defendant's incapacity was significant enough to warrant the appointment of the Trustee. The court concluded that the defendant's ability to manage their estate, particularly regarding the compensation claim and District Court proceedings, was compromised. Therefore, the court ordered the NSW Trustee to be appointed as the manager of that part of the defendant's estate. This decision ensured that the defendant's interests were protected and that the estate was managed in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Orders