VU v Miles - [2006] NSWADTAP 19

Appeal Panel - External

CITATION: VU v Miles [2006] NSWADTAP 19
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.

PARTIES: APPELLANT
VU
RESPONDENT
Miles

FILE NUMBER: 068004

HEARING DATES: 24/04/06

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/24/2006

EXTEMPORE DECISION DATE: 04/24/2006

DATE OF DECISION:
05/05/2006

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Britton A - Judicial Member; Wunsch A - Non Judical Member

CATCHWORDS: Financial management order - making of interim order - Protected Estates - estate of person be subject to management

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: C/16653

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 01/24/2006

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules (Transitional) Regulation 1998
Guardianship Act 1987
Mental Health Act 1990

REPRESENTATION:
APPELLANT
L Goodchild, counsel
COUNSEL ASSISTING
A Johnson, solicitor

ORDERS: The appeal is upheld; The decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal dated 24 January 2006 making an order that the estate of VU be subject to management under the Protected Estates Act 1983 for a period of six months is set aside.

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 VU is a man who has had at least four psychotic episodes necessitating admission to hospitals in New Zealand and Australia. The most recent episode occurred in December 2005 when VU was admitted to the Caritas Inpatient Unit of St Vincent’s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read VU v Miles and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWADTAP 19
Decision Date: 05/05/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of VU v Miles, the respondent sought an interim financial management order under the Protected Estates Act 1983 in relation to the appellant, VU. The application was made to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which subsequently made an order that VU's estate be subject to management for a period of six months. Dissatisfied with this decision, VU appealed to the court. The central issue in the case was whether the tribunal had the authority to make the order in question, given the specific provisions of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. The court had to determine if the tribunal's decision was in accordance with the relevant legislation and if there were any errors of law.

The court examined the statutory framework governing financial management orders and the tribunal's jurisdiction. It found that the tribunal's decision to make the order was not in line with the provisions of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. Specifically, the court held that the tribunal had misapplied the criteria for making such an order, leading to an error of law. Consequently, the court concluded that the tribunal's decision was flawed and should be set aside. The appeal was upheld, and the decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal dated 24 January 2006 was annulled.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory interpretation of the relevant acts and the tribunal's failure to adhere to the prescribed legal standards. The tribunal had not correctly applied the criteria set out in the legislation, resulting in an improper exercise of its jurisdiction. The court's decision underscores the importance of tribunals strictly following legislative mandates when making orders that significantly impact an individual's financial affairs. The outcome of the case highlights the need for tribunals to carefully consider the legal framework governing their decisions to avoid errors of law.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is upheld; The decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal dated 24 January 2006 making an order that the estate of VU be subject to management under the Protected Estates Act 1983 for a period of six months is set aside. Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies to this decision.

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.

CITATION:	VU v Miles [2006] NSWADTAP 19 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.
PARTIES:	APPELLANT VU RESPONDENT Miles
FILE NUMBER:	068004
HEARING DATES:	24/04/06
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/24/2006
EXTEMPORE DECISION DATE:	04/24/2006
DATE OF DECISION:	05/05/2006
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Britton A - Judicial Member; Wunsch A - Non Judical Member
CATCHWORDS:	Financial management order - making of interim order - Protected Estates - estate of person be subject to management
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	C/16653
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	01/24/2006
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules (Transitional) Regulation 1998 Guardianship Act 1987 Mental Health Act 1990
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT L Goodchild, counsel COUNSEL ASSISTING A Johnson, solicitor
ORDERS:	The appeal is upheld; The decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal dated 24 January 2006 making an order that the estate of VU be subject to management under the Protected Estates Act 1983 for a period of six months is set aside.