Williams v Guardianship Board No. Scciv-03-86

[2003] SASC 165

WILLIAMS v GUARDIANSHIP BOARD
[2003] SASC 165

Application for Leave to Appeal

Gray J

1. This is an application for an extension of time to appeal to the Full Court against a decision of a judge of this court striking out an application for leave to appeal and draft notice of appeal as incompetent.

   Background

2. Mr Williams seeks to complain about a guardianship order and an administration order made by the Guardianship Board. Section 67 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 provides a right of appeal to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court of South Australia[1].

   [1]67. (1) If—

3. Mr Williams sought to complain about those two appointments in that court. His appeal challenging the guardianship order came before a Judge of the District Court on 20 January 2003. The judge disqualified himself and the matter was listed before another judge of that court on 17 February 2003.

4. Mr Williams’ appeal about the appointment of Public Trustee as administrator did not come on for hearing. Apparently that appeal has been abandoned by Mr Williams.

5. In the event, there has been no order made by the District Court that is capable of being reviewed by this Court. In those circumstances, the decision dismissing Mr Williams’ application for leave to appeal was undoubtedly correct. There is no merit in the proposed appeal to the Full Court. The application for an extension of time is refused.

6. I do not consider delay to be a material factor. Mr Williams is unrepresented and the appeal and review processes can be confusing. An extension of time is refused as there is no merit in the proposed appeal.

7. This does not leave Mr Williams without avenues through which to pursue his complaints. It may be possible for Mr Williams to seek to have the decisions reviewed in the District Court. He may need to overcome delay and procedural difficulties arising from his abandonment of earlier proceedings.

8. Counsel have indicated that there is also the avenue of applying to the Guardianship Board to re-open or reconsider both orders. This may be an appropriate course given the delay and Mr Williams’ suggestions that the protected person’s circumstances have changed.

9. The order of the court is that the application to extend time to appeal is refused.

         (a)     the applicant in proceedings before the Board
         ...

(e)any other person who satisfies the Board or the ADD that he or she has a proper interest in the matter, is dissatisfied with a decision, direction or order of the Board made in those proceedings, he or she may—

(f)in the case of a decision or order for or affirming the detention of a person or relating to the giving of consent to a sterilisation or a termination of pregnancy—appeal to the ADD against the decision or order;

(g)in any other case—with the leave of the Board or the ADD, appeal to the ADD against the decision, direction or order.

...

(3)     An application for leave to appeal under this section must be instituted—

(a)within 28 days of the making of the decision, direction or order the subject of the application; or

(b)within 28 days of being furnished, pursuant to a request made within seven days of the making of the decision, direction or order, with the reasons for the decision, direction or order;  ...

(4) An appeal against an order of the Board for or affirming the detention of a person or relating to the giving of consent to a sterilisation must be instituted—

(a)              within 28 days of the making of the order; or

(b)within 28 days of being furnished, pursuant to a request made within seven days of the making of the order, with the reasons for the order,

whichever is the later.