YS v Protective Commissioner - [2006] NSWADTAP 67

Appeal Panel - External

CITATION: YS v Protective Commissioner and Ors [2006] NSWADTAP 67

PARTIES: APPELLANT
YS
FIRST RESPONDENT
Protective Commissioner
SECOND RESPONDENT
YT
THIRD RESPONDENT
Guardianship Tribunal

FILE NUMBER: 068014

HEARING DATES: 05/12/06

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/05/2006

EXTEMPORE DECISION DATE: 12/05/2006

DATE OF DECISION:
12/07/2006

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President)

CATCHWORDS: Financial management order - making

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: C/31486

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 08/10/2006

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Guardianship Act 1987

CASES CITED: 1. The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal made on 10 August 2006 in relation to YT is affirmed
2. The appeal is dismissed.

REPRESENTATION:
APPELLANT
In person
FIRST RESPONDENT
No appearance
SECOND RESPONDENT
No appearance
THIRD RESPONDENT
E Cho, Solicitor

ORDERS: 1. The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal made on 10 August 2006 in relation to YT is affirmed; 2. The appeal is dismissed.

Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies to this decision.
Section 126 provides

(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 broadcast the name of any person:

(a) who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or
(b) to whom any proceedings before the Tribunal relate, or

(c) who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings before the Tribunal,

whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.

(2) This section does not prohibit the publication or broadcasting of an official report of the proceedings that includes the name of any person the publication or broadcasting of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 YT is an elderly man who suffers from dementia and lives in a nursing home. YT’s daughter, YS, applied to the Guardianship Tribunal for a revocation of the financial management order that was in place in relation to her father. She had previously been her father’s attorney under a Power of Attorney he signed when he had capacity to do so. The making of the financial management order suspended the operation…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading YS v Protective Commissioner

Details

AGLC: YS v Protective Commissioner [2006] NSWADTAP 67
Case: [2006] NSWADTAP 67
Decision Date: 07/12/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of YS v Protective Commissioner, the applicant, YS, sought to appeal a decision made by the Guardianship Tribunal, which upheld a financial management order for YT, an individual under the care of YS. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court to review administrative decisions.

The court examined whether the Tribunal had correctly identified the necessity of the financial management order and whether the decision was based on an erroneous understanding of the relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the Tribunal had correctly assessed the need for the financial management order, considering YT's incapacity and the potential for harm without such an order. The court further determined that the Tribunal's decision was not tainted by jurisdictional error, as it was based on a proper application of the law and the evidence presented.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the Guardianship Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The court's decision emphasised the importance of respecting the expertise and findings of the Tribunal in matters concerning the care and protection of vulnerable individuals. The appeal was dismissed, and the financial management order for YT remained in place, underscoring the court's deference to the Tribunal's findings in such sensitive matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal made on 10 August 2006 in relation to YT is affirmed; 2. The appeal is 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.

CITATION:	YS v Protective Commissioner and Ors [2006] NSWADTAP 67
PARTIES:	APPELLANT YS FIRST RESPONDENT Protective Commissioner SECOND RESPONDENT YT THIRD RESPONDENT Guardianship Tribunal
FILE NUMBER:	068014
HEARING DATES:	05/12/06
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	12/05/2006
EXTEMPORE DECISION DATE:	12/05/2006
DATE OF DECISION:	12/07/2006
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President)
CATCHWORDS:	Financial management order - making
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	C/31486
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	08/10/2006
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Guardianship Act 1987
CASES CITED:	1. The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal made on 10 August 2006 in relation to YT is affirmed 2. The appeal is dismissed.
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT In person FIRST RESPONDENT No appearance SECOND RESPONDENT No appearance THIRD RESPONDENT E Cho, Solicitor
ORDERS:	1. The decision of the Guardianship Tribunal made on 10 August 2006 in relation to YT is affirmed; 2. The appeal is dismissed.