G v G [2016] NSWSC 511

G v G [2016] NSWSC 511

The defendant was incapable of managing his affairs and his substantial estate was plainly beyond his capacity to manage himself. The plaintiff's daughter was supported by the evidence as a suitable person for appointment with the plaintiff as joint manager. Given the credible risk that the defendant could be exploited through overseas travel and marriage, and the need to secure his person while preserving his freedom of action as far as possible, it was appropriate to appoint the plaintiff and his daughter as joint guardians subject to ongoing review, and to make directions concerning the passport and watchlist to reduce opportunities and incentives for exploitation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Protective Jurisdiction and Guardianship Application / Notice of Motion in Chambers to Vary Protected Estate Management Orders, Appoint Joint Managers and Appoint Guardians
Outcome
Protected estate management orders varied; plaintiff and his daughter appointed joint managers and joint guardians of the defendant; directions made concerning the defendant's passport, watchlist and ongoing review; costs later ordered to be paid from the defendant's estate on the indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['incapacity for Self Management' 'management of Protected Estate' 'appointment of Family Members as Managers' 'appointment of Committee of the Person' 'protection From Exploitation' 'control of Passport and Overseas Travel']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Protective Jurisdiction and Guardianship Application / Notice of Motion in Chambers to Vary Protected Estate Management Orders, Appoint Joint Managers and Appoint Guardians

  1. 1 ["Whether the existing protected estate management orders should be varied to appoint the plaintiff and his daughter jointly as managers of the defendant's estate." 'Whether the plaintiff and his daughter should also be appointed as guardians, or committee of the person, of the defendant.' "Whether directions should be made enabling the guardians to control the defendant's passport and request placement of his name and particulars on a watchlist at points of arrival and departure in Australia." 'How the Court should balance protection of the defendant from exploitation against preserving his freedom of action and personal autonomy.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was incapable of managing his affairs and his substantial estate was plainly beyond his capacity to manage himself. The plaintiff's daughter was supported by the evidence as a suitable person for appointment with the plaintiff as joint manager. Given the credible risk that the defendant could be exploited through overseas travel and marriage, and the need to secure his person while preserving his freedom of action as far as possible, it was appropriate to appoint the plaintiff and his daughter as joint guardians subject to ongoing review, and to make directions concerning the passport and watchlist to reduce opportunities and incentives for exploitation.

Court Disposition

Protected estate management orders varied; plaintiff and his daughter appointed joint managers and joint guardians of the defendant; directions made concerning the defendant's passport, watchlist and ongoing review; costs later ordered to be paid from the defendant's estate on the indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['Declared, pursuant to section 41(1)(a) of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act, that the defendant is incapable of managing his affairs.' 'Ordered, pursuant to section 41(1)(a) of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act, that the estate of the defendant be subject to management under the Act.' 'Ordered, pursuant to section...