TZM

Case [2019] NSWCATGD 6


NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: TZM [2019] NSWCATGD 6
Hearing dates: 6 March 2019
Date of orders: 06 March 2019
Decision date: 06 March 2019
Jurisdiction:Guardianship Division
Before: A R Boxall, Senior Member (Legal)
A M Matheson, Senior Member (Professional)
E Lyne, General Member (Community)
Decision:

1. A guardianship order is made for TZM.

 

2. NBI of [address removed for publication.] is appointed as the guardian.

 

3. This is a continuing guardianship order for a period of 12 months from 6 March 2019.

 

4. This is a limited guardianship order giving the guardian(s) custody of TZM to the extent necessary to carry out the functions below.

 

FUNCTIONS:

 

5. The guardian has the following functions:

 

a) Accommodation

 

To decide where TZM may reside.

 

b) Health care

 

To decide what health care TZM may receive.

 

c) Medical/Dental consent

 

To make substitute decisions about proposed minor or major medical or dental treatment, where TZM is not capable of giving a valid consent.

 

d) Services

 

To make decisions about services to be provided to TZM.

 

CONDITIONS:

 

6. The condition of this order is:

 

a) Standard Condition

 In exercising this role the guardian shall take all reasonable steps to bring TZM to an understanding of the issues and to obtain and consider their views before making significant decisions.
Catchwords:

GUARDIANSHIP – application for a guardianship order – subject person needing medical treatment – persons responsible available – failure of hospital to identify and recognise authority of person responsible – practical necessity for appointment of a guardian – guardianship order made – appointment of private guardian.

GENERAL – Part 5 of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) – operation of the “person responsible” regime
Legislation Cited: Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), Pts 3, 5, ss 3(1)–(2), 4, 14, 14(2), 15(3), 17(1), 33A, 33A(4)(d), 35–37
Cases Cited: C S and M Y v the Guardianship Tribunal and the Public Guardian (Supreme Court (NSW), Windeyer J, 29 November 1999, unrep
IF v IG [2004] NSWADTAP 3
P v D1 & Ors [2011] NSWSC 257
Re B [2011] NSWSC 1075
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

001: Guardianship Application

  TZM (the person)
NBI (applicant)
Public Guardian
Representation: Nil
File Number(s): NCAT 2018/00369527
Publication restriction: Decisions of the Guardianship Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal have been anonymised to remove any information that may identify any person involved in the Tribunal’s proceedings (s 65, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)).

REASONS FOR DECISION

GUARDIANSHIP APPLICATION

Background

  1. TZM is 70-years-old and is a long-term resident of a group home in regional NSW operated by disability service provider. For approximately the last two and a half months, however, she has been an inpatient at hospitals in regional NSW – initially Hospital A, and subsequently Hospital B. The reason for her hospitalisation is severe osteomyelitis of the knee, for which she has been receiving treatment as an inpatient. TZM is reported to have Down’s syndrome and an intellectual disability. TZM is also said…

Continue reading TZM

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
TZM [2019] NSWCATGD 6
Case
[2019] NSWCATGD 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of TZM, the court was approached for a guardianship order due to the subject person's need for medical treatment and the inability of those persons responsible for them to be identified and recognised by the hospital. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a guardianship order should be made for TZM, given that persons responsible for them were available but not recognised by the hospital. The court had to consider the operation of the "person responsible" regime under Part 5 of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) and whether there was a practical necessity for the appointment of a guardian.

The court found that, despite the availability of persons responsible for TZM, the hospital's failure to identify and recognise their authority created a situation where it was practically necessary to appoint a guardian. The court considered the welfare and best interests of TZM and concluded that a guardianship order was required to ensure that they received the necessary medical treatment. The court appointed NBI as the guardian and outlined the specific functions and conditions of the guardianship order, including the requirement for the guardian to consider TZM's views before making significant decisions.

The court made a guardianship order for TZM, appointing NBI as the guardian. The order is a continuing guardianship order for a period of 12 months from 6 March 2019 and is limited to specific functions such as deciding TZM's accommodation, health care, and medical/dental consent. The guardian must take reasonable steps to involve TZM in decision-making processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. A guardianship order is made for TZM.

2. NBI of [address removed for publication.] is appointed as the guardian.

3. This is a continuing guardianship order for a period of 12 months from 6 March 2019.

4. This is a limited guardianship order giving the guardian(s) custody of TZM to the extent necessary to carry out the functions below.

FUNCTIONS:

5. The guardian has the following functions:

a) Accommodation

To decide where TZM may reside.

b) Health care

To decide what health care TZM may receive.

c) Medical/Dental consent

To make substitute decisions about proposed minor or major medical or dental treatment, where TZM is not capable of giving a valid consent.

d) Services

To make decisions about services to be provided to TZM.

CONDITIONS:

6. The condition of this order is:

a) Standard Condition

In exercising this role the guardian shall take all reasonable steps to bring TZM to an understanding of the issues and to obtain and consider their views before making significant decisions.

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.