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.
Procedural Posture
Protective Jurisdiction and Guardianship Application / Notice of Motion in Chambers to Vary Protected Estate Management Orders, Appoint Joint Managers and Appoint Guardians
Legal Issues
- 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...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment