KJ v SJ [2020] NSWSC 932

KJ v SJ [2020] NSWSC 932

The Court was not satisfied that SJ was capable of managing her affairs now or in the foreseeable future. Although SJ had achieved substantial independence as a parent and part-time worker and said she would obtain financial advice, the evidence showed very poor memory, executive dysfunction, lack of insight, difficulty prioritising spending, reliance on assistance despite most bills being paid by the manager, and inability to demonstrate reasoned decision-making about a complex estate of approximately $2.6 million. The Court accepted Dr Jungfer's evidence as the most reliable expert evidence and found a real risk that, if the protective orders were revoked, SJ would be disadvantaged and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 86 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (nsw) for Revocation of Protected Estate Management Orders / Hearing of Amended Notice of Motion in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Protective List
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protected Person' 'financial Management Orders' 'capacity to Manage Affairs' 'traumatic Brain Injury' 'executive Dysfunction' 'tutor and Person Under Legal Incapacity']
['guardianship' 'equity' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'civil Procedure'] ['protected Person' 'financial Management Orders' 'capacity to Manage Affairs' 'traumatic Brain Injury' 'executive Dysfunction' 'tutor and Person Under Legal Incapacity']

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

Application Pursuant to S 86 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (nsw) for Revocation of Protected Estate Management Orders / Hearing of Amended Notice of Motion in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Protective List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should dispense with the requirements of Part 7, Division 4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) in relation to SJ's amended notice of motion." 'Whether the Court was satisfied under s 86 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW) that SJ is capable of managing her affairs.' "Whether SJ's functional capacity, including memory, insight, executive functioning and ability to use professional financial advice, was sufficient to manage an estate of approximately $2.6 million now and in the reasonably foreseeable future." 'Whether revocation of the protective orders would create a real risk that SJ would be disadvantaged or that money or property in her estate may be dissipated.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that SJ was capable of managing her affairs now or in the foreseeable future. Although SJ had achieved substantial independence as a parent and part-time worker and said she would obtain financial advice, the evidence showed very poor memory, executive dysfunction, lack of insight, difficulty prioritising spending, reliance on assistance despite most bills being paid by the manager, and inability to demonstrate reasoned decision-making about a complex estate of approximately $2.6 million. The Court accepted Dr Jungfer's evidence as the most reliable expert evidence and found a real risk that, if the protective orders were revoked, SJ would be disadvantaged and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss paragraphs 4 to 6 of the amended notice of motion filed on 11 October 2018.' 'Note that paragraphs 1, 2 and 2A of the amended notice of motion are not pressed.' 'Direct that SJ and each respondent to the amended notice of motion exchange written submissions in support of the costs orders that they contend...