XC v Protective Commissioner

Case [2006] NSWADTAP 64

Appeal Panel - External


CITATION: XC v Protective Commissioner and Ors [2006] NSWADTAP 64
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.
PARTIES: APPELLANT
XC
FIRST RESPONDENT
Protective Commissioner
SECOND RESPONDENT
Kathryn Worne
THIRD RESPONDENT
Guardianship Tribunal
FILE NUMBER: 068009
HEARING DATES: 24/07/06
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 07/24/2006
 
DATE OF DECISION: 
12/06/2006
BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Britton A - (Deputy President); Wunsch A - Non Judical Member
CATCHWORDS: Financial management order - making - Protected Estates - estate of person be subject to management
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: C/31736
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 03/20/2006
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules (Transitional) Regulation 1998
Guardianship Act 1987
Mental Health Act 1990
Protected Estates Act 1983
CASES CITED: Athens v Randwick City Council [2002] NSWCA 83
Australian Alliance Assurance Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Qld) [1916] ST R Qd 135
Beale v GIO (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Brown v Petrie (1997) 7 Tas R 216
Brown v Petrie (No2) (unreported), TASSC, Underwood J, 18 November 1998
Cody v JH Nelson Pry Ltd (1947) 74 CLR 629
Hall v Jones (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 203
K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052
PY v RJS [1982] 2 NSWLR 700
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
R v Hickman (1945) 70 CLR 508
Ragless v Prospect District Council [1922] SASR 299
Re GHI [2005] NSWSC 581
Re Mc (1989) 3 VAR 87
Re R [2000] NSWSC 886
S v S [2001] NSWSC 146
VU v Miles [2006] NSW ADT AP 19
WP v Protective Commissioner [2006] NSW ADTAP 37
REPRESENTATION:

APPELLANT
M Fraser, Barrister

FIRST RESPONDENT
No appearance
SECOND RESPONDENT
No appearance
THIRD RESPONDENT
E Cho, Solicitor
COUNSEL ASSISTING
S Morris, Solicitor
ORDERS: 1. Leave to appeal on “any other grounds” is refused; 2. The Guardianship Tribunal's decision of 20 March 2006 that the estate of XC be subject to management under the provisions of the Protected Estates Act 1983 and the management of the estate of XC be committed to the Protective Commissioner is affirmed; 3. Appeal dismissed.

(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…

Continue reading XC v Protective Commissioner

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
XC v Protective Commissioner [2006] NSWADTAP 64
Case
[2006] NSWADTAP 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

XC sought to appeal against a decision of the Guardianship Tribunal which had ordered that his estate be subject to management under the Protected Estates Act 1983. The dispute centred around whether the Tribunal had exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner when determining that the estate of XC should be subject to management and that the management of the estate should be committed to the Protective Commissioner. The appeal was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Guardianship Tribunal had exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner by deciding that the estate of XC should be subject to management. This involved examining whether the Tribunal had considered all relevant factors, whether the decision was based on an error of law, and whether the decision was otherwise irrational or unjust. The court also had to consider whether the decision to commit the management of the estate to the Protective Commissioner was within the scope of the Tribunal's discretion.

The court found that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion lawfully and reasonably. It held that the Tribunal had considered all relevant factors and that there was no error of law in the decision. The court further found that the decision to commit the management of the estate to the Protective Commissioner was within the scope of the Tribunal's discretion. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Guardianship Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal on "any other grounds" is refused; 2. The Guardianship Tribunal's decision of 20 March 2006 that the estate of XC be subject to management under the provisions of the Protected Estates Act 1983 and the management of the estate of XC be committed to the Protective Commissioner is affirmed; 3. Appeal dismissed. 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.