Ugur v Public Guardian

[2022] NSWCATAD 279

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Ugur v Public Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 279

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

19 August 2022

Decision date:

19 August 2022

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

S Montgomery, Senior Member

Decision:

1. Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 a hearing of the dismissal application is dispensed with.

2. Pursuant to section 55(1) (b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the proceedings are dismissed because they are misconceived.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Guardianship – Decision of Public Guardian – Review under 80A – whether internal review – application for extension of time to bring application - whether proceedings futile – whether misconceived and/or lacking in substance

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Guardianship Act 1987

Guardianship Regulation 2016

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014

Cases Cited:

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes [2012] NSWCA 244; 61 MVR 443

BKW v Department of Family and Community Services [2014] NSWCATAD 205

DWZ v Wandiyali [2019] NSWCATAD 190

DYH v Public Guardian (No 3) [2022] NSWCATAP 34

Gamester Pty Ltd v Lockhart (1993) 112 ALR 623

Jackson v Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22

Long v Metromix Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 198

Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369; (2007) 71NSWLR 61

University of New South Wales v McGuirk (No 1) (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 65

Zonnevylle v Information Commissioner [2021] NSWCATAD 366

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Haci Emin Orhan Ugur (Applicant)
Public Guardian (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Applicant (Self Represented)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2022/00063208

Publication restriction:

Nil

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

1. Mr Haci Emin Orhan Ugur ("the Applicant") has applied ("the substantive application") for review by the Tribunal of various decisions made by the Public Guardian ("the Respondent") in 2007 and 2008. At that time the Applicant was the subject of a limited guardianship order made by the then Guardianship Tribunal.

2. The substantive application seeks administrative review of the alleged decisions of the Respondent (“the challenged decisions”). His application to the Tribunal stated that he had only recently found out that the Respondent had made decisions affecting him. His application indicated that he was aggrieved by decisions the Respondent. He identified the challenged decisions in the following way:

“During 2007-2008, when the applicant [was] under the Public Guardian Order, The OPG made decisions affecting the applicant (without inform the applicant, or giving a reason, or in compliance with procedural fairness, without the limits of the PG functions concerning the applicant, which was the lapsed 18 February 2008) including:

a.   The appointment of legal services and to liaise with these services .... for Legal Aid to accept an application for legal representation from the applicant.

b.   Monitoring with Advocacy

c.   Health care

d.   Setting up the applicant’s cases dismissed against the DIAC [Department of Immigration and Citizenship] and COO [the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office] in the Federal Court…