UAM [2020] NSWCATGD 85

UAM [2020] NSWCATGD 85

UAM continues to require a guardian due to significant cognitive impairment and inability to manage his personal affairs arising from dementia. While a private individual is to be preferred over the Public Guardian, BYM failed to demonstrate he satisfied the statutory requirements of suitability as guardian, primarily due to family conflict and insufficient evidence under s 17(1) Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW). There was no supportable evidence for neglect or misconduct by the Public Guardian. Accordingly, the Public Guardian was reappointed as guardian for two years, with specified functions relating to access, accommodation (including authorisation to NSW Police and Ambulance), health...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Review of Guardianship Order / Hearing and Determination of Review
Outcome
Guardianship order for UAM renewed and varied; Public Guardian reappointed as guardian for two years.
Legal Topics
['review of Guardianship Order' 'appointment of Guardian' 'guardianship Act 1987 (nsw)' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment Principles' 'actual Bias' 'disability and Substituted Decision Making']
['guardianship' 'civil Procedure'] ['review of Guardianship Order' 'appointment of Guardian' 'guardianship Act 1987 (nsw)' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment Principles' 'actual Bias' 'disability and Substituted Decision Making']

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

Review of Guardianship Order / Hearing and Determination of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether UAM continues to be a person in need of a guardian under the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW)' 'Whether a further guardianship order should be made for UAM' "Who should be appointed as UAM's guardian" 'What functions the guardian should have' 'Appropriateness of an adjournment sought by BYM' 'Whether the Tribunal member was affected by actual bias or lacked impartiality']

Ratio Decidendi

UAM continues to require a guardian due to significant cognitive impairment and inability to manage his personal affairs arising from dementia. While a private individual is to be preferred over the Public Guardian, BYM failed to demonstrate he satisfied the statutory requirements of suitability as guardian, primarily due to family conflict and insufficient evidence under s 17(1) Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW). There was no supportable evidence for neglect or misconduct by the Public Guardian. Accordingly, the Public Guardian was reappointed as guardian for two years, with specified functions relating to access, accommodation (including authorisation to NSW Police and Ambulance), health...

Court Disposition

Guardianship order for UAM renewed and varied; Public Guardian reappointed as guardian for two years.

Orders

  • ['The Public Guardian is appointed as the guardian.' 'This is a continuing guardianship order for a period of two years from 4 August 2020.' 'This is a limited guardianship order giving the guardian(s) custody of UAM to the extent necessary to carry out the functions below: (a) Access: to decide what access UAM has...