AQY & AQZ v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1028

AQY & AQZ v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1028

The Children's Court order of 5 October 2011 allocated all aspects of parental responsibility to the Minister and required an s82 report, but did not expressly embody or approve the permanency plan signed on 6 September 2011. The magistrate's statement that permanency planning had been adequately and appropriately addressed was a finding required by s83(7)(a), not an order approving the plan. Because the permanency plan had not been embodied in or approved by Children's Court orders, s245(1B) did not exclude review, and the Administrative Decisions Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine matter number 124031.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Supervisory Jurisdiction Proceedings Seeking to Prohibit the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales From Hearing and Determining Matter Number 124031 / Principal Ex Tempore Judgment on Summons Challenging the Tribunal's Jurisdiction Before the Tribunal Merits Hearing
Outcome
Summons dismissed; declarations made that the permanency plan had not been embodied in or approved by Children's Court orders and that the Administrative Decisions Tribunal had jurisdiction; restraining order dissolved; plaintiffs ordered to pay the second defendants' costs, otherwise each party to bear his or her...
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'administrative Decisions Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'review of Decision Concerning Daily Care and Control of a Child' 'permanency Plan' "children's Court Care Orders" 'children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 (nsw) S245']
['administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'care and Protection'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'administrative Decisions Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'review of Decision Concerning Daily Care and Control of a Child' 'permanency Plan' "children's Court Care Orders" 'children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 (nsw) S245']

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

Supervisory Jurisdiction Proceedings Seeking to Prohibit the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales From Hearing and Determining Matter Number 124031 / Principal Ex Tempore Judgment on Summons Challenging the Tribunal's Jurisdiction Before the Tribunal Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales had jurisdiction to review the Director-General's decision not to grant the second defendants responsibility for the daily care and control of the subject child." "Whether the Director-General's decision was a decision in relation to the preparation of a permanency plan or the enforcement of a permanency plan embodied in, or approved by, an order or orders of the Children's Court." "Whether the Children's Court magistrate's finding that the Care Plan adequately and appropriately addressed permanency planning amounted to embodying or approving the permanency plan in Children's Court orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Children's Court order of 5 October 2011 allocated all aspects of parental responsibility to the Minister and required an s82 report, but did not expressly embody or approve the permanency plan signed on 6 September 2011. The magistrate's statement that permanency planning had been adequately and appropriately addressed was a finding required by s83(7)(a), not an order approving the plan. Because the permanency plan had not been embodied in or approved by Children's Court orders, s245(1B) did not exclude review, and the Administrative Decisions Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine matter number 124031.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; declarations made that the permanency plan had not been embodied in or approved by Children's Court orders and that the Administrative Decisions Tribunal had jurisdiction; restraining order dissolved; plaintiffs ordered to pay the second defendants' costs, otherwise each party to bear his or her...

Orders

  • ["Declare that the permanency plan signed on 6 September 2011 concerning the subject child has not been embodied in, or approved by, the order or orders of the Children's Court of New South Wales made on 5 October 2011." 'Declare that the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales has jurisdiction to hear...