XA v NSW Trustee and Guardian (External)

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: XA v NSW Trustee and Guardian (External) [2011] NSWADTAP 20
Hearing dates:4 March 2011
Decision date: 29 April 2011
Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President
Ms S Leal, Judicial Member
Dr B Field, Non-judicial Member
Decision:

1. XA's application for leave for the appeal to proceed on grounds other than a question of law is refused.

2. The Guardianship Tribunal's decision to allow the guardianship order in relation to XB to lapse is affirmed.

3. The Guardianship Tribunal's decision to confirm the appointment of the NSW Trustee and Guardian as XB's financial manager is affirmed.

Catchwords: APPEAL - lapsing or revocation of guardianship order - test to be applied - no question of law
Legislation Cited: Guardianship Act 1987
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Cases Cited: Holt and Anor v Protective Commissioner (1993) 31 NSWLR 227
IF v IG & Ors [2004] NSWADTAP 3
Ormwave Pty Ltd v Smith [2007] NSWCA 210; 5 DDCR 180
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: XA (Appellant)
XB (First Respondent)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (Second Respondent)
Guardianship Tribunal (Decision Maker)
Representation: XA (Appellant - in person)
Dr Frank Ainsworth (Guardian ad litem for First Respondent)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (No Appearance)
Guardianship Tribunal (Decision Maker - Ms E Cho)
File Number(s):108011
 Decision under appeal 
Date of Decision:
2010-09-24 00:00:00
Before:
Ms C Fourgere
Ms S Taylor
Ms Le Manns
File Number(s):
File No. C/33625
Matter No 2010/3742

reasons

Introduction

  1. XB, who has an intellectual disability and schizophrenia, lives in supported accommodation in the Newcastle area. The accommodation is operated by New Horizons Enterprises Ltd. XB's brother, XA, has appealed against two decisions of the Guardianship Tribunal. The first decision was to allow a previous guardianship order appointing the Public Guardian (now the NSW Trustee and Guardian) as XB's guardian, to lapse. XA wanted the guardianship order to continue and for him to be appointed as his brother's guardian to make substitute decisions in relation to health care and medical treatment. The second decision was to confirm a previous financial management order appointing the NSW Trustee and Guardian as XB's financial manager. XA had applied for a review of that order requesting that he replace the NSW Trustee and Guardian as his brother's financial manager.

  1. At the hearing the Guardianship Tribunal dealt with four applications; three relating to the guardianship order and one relating to the financial management order. Those applications were:

(1)   an application by XA to review the guardianship order;

(2)   an application by the Public Guardian to review the guardianship order;

(3)   the statutory review of the guardianship order due in September 2011, which was brought forward;

(4)   an application from XA to review the financial management order made for XB on 10 May 2006 and to replace the NSW Trustee with XA as the manager of XB's estate.

  1. XA appealed against the Guardianship Tribunal's decisions on questions of law. In addition,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read XA v NSW Trustee and Guardian (External) 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 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

XA appealed against the decision of the Guardianship Tribunal, which allowed a guardianship order in relation to XB to lapse and confirmed the appointment of the NSW Trustee and Guardian as XB's financial manager. The court was required to determine whether the Guardianship Tribunal erred in its decision to allow the guardianship order to lapse and to appoint the NSW Trustee and Guardian as XB's financial manager.

The court found that the Guardianship Tribunal had correctly applied the law in allowing the guardianship order to lapse and in appointing the NSW Trustee and Guardian as XB's financial manager. The court held that the test to be applied in determining whether a guardianship order should lapse or be revoked is whether the person subject to the order has recovered or is likely to recover the capacity to manage their own affairs. The court found that the Guardianship Tribunal had correctly applied this test and had not erred in its decision to allow the guardianship order to lapse.

The court also found that the Guardianship Tribunal had correctly appointed the NSW Trustee and Guardian as XB's financial manager. The court held that the Guardianship Tribunal was required to consider the best interests of XB in making its decision and that the appointment of the NSW Trustee and Guardian was in the best interests of XB. The court found that the Guardianship Tribunal had correctly considered the relevant factors in making its decision and had not erred in appointing the NSW Trustee and Guardian as XB's financial manager.

The court dismissed XA's application for leave for the appeal to proceed on grounds other than a question of law and affirmed the Guardianship Tribunal's decision to allow the guardianship order to lapse and to confirm the appointment of the NSW Trustee and Guardian as XB's financial manager.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. XA's application for leave for the appeal to proceed on grounds other than a question of law is refused.

2. The Guardianship Tribunal's decision to allow the guardianship order in relation to XB to lapse is affirmed.

3. The Guardianship Tribunal's decision to confirm the appointment of the NSW Trustee and Guardian as XB's financial manager is affirmed.

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.