Vu v NSW Trustee and Guardian

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: VU v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2011] NSWADTAP 45
Hearing dates:18 March 2011
Decision date: 06 October 2011
Jurisdiction:Appeal Panel - External
Before: S Higgins, Deputy President
J Millar, Judicial Member
M Bolt, Non-Judicial Member
Decision:

1.Leave to appeal on the merits is refused.

2.Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: APPEAL - question of law - procedural fairness - bias
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Guardianship Act 1987
NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009
Powers of Attorney Act 2003
Cases Cited: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63
FX v NSW Trustee & Guardian (External) [2011] NSWADTAP 31
K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural affairs v Jai (2001) 2005 CLR 507
Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; (1983) 151 CLR 288
Re R [2000] NSWSC 886
Reg v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong [1976] HCA 39; (1976) 136 CLR 248
S v S [2001] NSWSC 146
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: VU - Appellant
NSW Trustee and Guardian - First Respondent
VV - Second Respondent
VW -Third Respondent
Representation: VU (Appellant in person)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (First Respondent) (submitting appearance)
Jessep & Storm Solicitors (Second Respondent)
CBD Legal (the Protected Person)
File Number(s):108007
Publication restriction:s 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies
 Decision under appeal 
Date of Decision:
2010-07-16 00:00:00
File Number(s):
C/43673

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. EXTERNAL APPEAL (S Higgins, Deputy President; J Millar, Judicial Member; M Bolt, Non-Judicial Member) The appellant, VU has appealed against a decision of the Guardianship Tribunal to make orders concerning her mother, VW. The orders made by the Guardianship Tribunal were (a) a guardianship order in respect of VW under the provisions of the Guardianship Act 1987. The Public Guardian and VU were appointed separately as the guardians and the order was a continuing order for 12 months, and (b) an order that the estate of VW be made subject to management under the provisions of the NSW Trustee and Guardians Act 2009, with the management of her estate being committed to the NSW Trustee.

  1. VU has appealed against the Guardianship Tribunal's decisions on a question of law. In addition to this VU seeks leave to appeal on the merits of the Guardianship Tribunal's decision: see the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the ADT Act), subsection 118B(1).

  1. VW has three children, two daughters and a son. She is an 85 year old widow who resides in a dementia-specific high-care unit in a nursing home. On 20 March 2008, VW appointed her daughter, VU (the appellant) as her attorney under an enduring power of attorney. At the same time, VW appointed VU as her enduring guardian. Prior to November 2009, VW was living in her own home. For 5 years, VV, VW's son, had been living with her, on a permanent basis, as her carer. On 23 November 2009, VW was admitted to hospital after dislocating her shoulder.…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vu v NSW Trustee and Guardian 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
[2011] NSWADTAP 45
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vu v NSW Trustee and Guardian involved a dispute between the appellant, Vu, and the respondent, the Trustee and Guardian of New South Wales. Vu challenged a decision made by the Trustee and Guardian regarding her eligibility for the Age Pension. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was required to determine whether the decision-making process was legally sound and whether the principles of procedural fairness were upheld.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Trustee and Guardian had acted with procedural fairness in its decision-making process, and whether there was any bias on the part of the decision-maker. Vu argued that the decision was flawed due to procedural unfairness and that there was an element of bias in the decision-making process. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine whether these claims had merit.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the decision-making process followed the appropriate legal framework and that there was no procedural unfairness or bias. The court was satisfied that the Trustee and Guardian had acted within its statutory powers and had followed the correct procedures. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal on the merits was refused.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal on the merits was refused and the appeal was dismissed. This decision confirmed the validity of the decision made by the Trustee and Guardian and upheld the integrity of the administrative process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Leave to appeal on the merits is refused.

2.Appeal dismissed.

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.