Appeal Panel - External
CITATION: WP v Protective Commissioner [2006] NSWADTAP 37 PARTIES: APPELLANT
WP
RESPONDENT
Protective CommissionerFILE NUMBER: 068008 HEARING DATES: 15/06/2006 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 06/15/2006 EXTEMPORE DECISION DATE: 06/15/2006
DATE OF DECISION:
08/18/2006BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Britton A - Judicial Member; Wunsch A - Non Judical Member CATCHWORDS: Parties - Procedural fairness - Protected Estates Act - operation of Section 20 - Protected Estates Order - making of interim order MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 01/18/2006 LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal (Interim Rules) 1998
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Guardianship Act 1987
Mental Health Act 1990
Protected Estates Act 1983CASES CITED: VU v Miles [2006] NSWADTAP 19
Moore v Guardianship and Administration Board [1990] VR 902
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 222 ALR 416-417
KA v Public Guardian & Ors (No 2) [2004] NSWADTAP 48
TC v Public Guardian & Ors [2006] NSWADTAP 15
EMG v Guardianship and Administration Board of Victoria [1999] NSWSC 501
Carew v Protective Commissioner & ors [2005] NSWADTAP 13
Hess v Public Guardian & ors [2005] NSWADTAP 43REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
In person (with W Millard)
No appearance
SOLICITOR ASSISTING
S Morris, solicitor, Crown Solicitor's OfficeORDERS: The Appeal Panel orders; 1. that the order made on 18 January 2006 that the appellant’s estate be subject to management under the Protected Estates Act 1983 for a period of 12 months be set aside; 2. that this order take effect upon service on the Protective Commissioner
1 On 13 January 2006 the appellant was admitted as an involuntary patient to the mental health care unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital (the Hospital). As required by the Mental Health Act 1990 (MHA) s 38, the medical superintendent arranged for her to be brought before a Magistrate to determine under s 51 whether she should continue to be held in detention, or discharged conditionally or unconditionally.
2 Part 3 of the Protected Estates Act 1983 (PEA) governs the present matter. If a s 38 MHA inquiry is required, the medical superintendent must, in addition, give the notice required by PEA, s 15:
- ‘ 15 Notice that person’s capability to manage affairs will be considered
A medical superintendent who intends to bring a person before a Magistrate under section 38 of the Mental Health Act 1990 shall:
(a) when giving the information required to be given to the person under section 38 of that Act give to the person the prescribed information with respect to the question of the capability of the person to manage his or her affairs, and
(b) when giving the notice required to be given under section 38 of that Act give to each of the persons required to be given that notice the prescribed information with respect to the question of the capability of the person being brought before the Magistrate to manage his or…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read WP v Protective Commissioner 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] NSWADTAP 37
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Protected Estates Order made by the Protective Commissioner was valid and if the procedural fairness was upheld during its making. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Protected Estates Act was correctly applied and if the decision-making process complied with the requirements of procedural fairness.
The court found that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that WP was unable to manage their estate. It was held that the Protected Estates Order was made without a proper basis in the evidence and therefore was invalid. Additionally, the court determined that the decision-making process did not comply with the requirements of procedural fairness. As a result, the court set aside the order made on 18 January 2006 that WP's estate be subject to management under the Act for a period of 12 months. The Appeal Panel ordered that this decision take effect upon service on the Protective Commissioner.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Appeal Panel orders; 1. that the order made on 18 January 2006 that the appellant's estate be subject to management under the Protected Estates Act 1983 for a period of 12 months be set aside; 2. that this order take effect upon service on the Protective Commissioner
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.