Tanious v The Public Guardian

[2012] NSWCA 335

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:

Tanious v The Public Guardian

Medium Neutral Citation:

[2012] NSWCA 335

Hearing Date(s):

3 October 2012

Decision Date:

03 October 2012

Jurisdiction:

Before:

Meagher JA at [1], [19]
Sackville AJA at [2] - [3]
Tobias AJA at [4]

Decision:

Notice of Motion dismissed. No order as to costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

NOTICE OF MOTION - review of the decision of Macfarlan JA brought pursuant to s 46(4) Supreme Court Act 1970 - whether the decision of Macfarlan JA dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal was plainly wrong - notice of motion dismissed - no order as to costs

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Guardianship Act 1987
Supreme Court Act 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:

Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403
Tanious v Hunt [2012] NSWCA 51
Tanious v Public Guardian [2012] NSWCA 165

Texts Cited:

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Mofeed Tanious (Appellant)
The Public Guardian (First Respondent)
Irini Moza (Second Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel:

- Solicitors:

Appellant in person
Crown Solicitor's Office (First Respondent)
No appearance (Second Respondent)

File number(s):

CA50000 of 2012

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal:

- Before:

Macfarlan JA

- Date of Decision:

28 May 2012

- Citation:

- Court File Number(s)

CA50000 of 2012

Publication Restriction:

JUDGMENT

1. MEAGHER JA: I agree for the reasons given by Acting Justice Tobias that Mr Tanious's motion should be dismissed.

2. SACKVILLE AJA: I agree with the orders proposed by Acting Justice Tobias and with his Honour's reasons. I add only this observation. As Justice Tobias has pointed out, the orders made by the Guardianship Tribunal on 10 May 2012 appointed Father Fanous to be the guardian of Mr Moza. It is Father Fanous who now has responsibility of determining where Mr Moza should reside. The Public Guardian no longer has a role to play. Mr Tanious has not challenged the orders made by the Tribunal on 10 May 2012.

3. In these circumstances it is difficult to see the point of the present application which is directed ultimately to the correctness of an order relating to Mr Moza's place of residence made by the Tribunal on 10 February 2011. The orders made at that time have been superseded by the later orders made by the Tribunal

4. TOBIAS AJA: Mr Lawis Moza is the father of Mr Mofeed Tanious. The former is now 91 years of age. On 12 January 2011, the Guardianship Tribunal (the Tribunal) made a guardianship order pursuant to the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) by which…