DZM [2020] NSWCATGD 66

DZM [2020] NSWCATGD 66

DZM continued to have an intellectual disability and other diagnoses that prevented him from making important life decisions, and a further guardianship order was necessary to authorise consent to restrictive practices identified in his behaviour support plan. The Tribunal was not persuaded that accommodation, services, health care or medical and dental functions were necessary because TAM could make those decisions without the formality of a guardianship order, including as DZM's person responsible or NDIS nominee. TAM and BYM remained suitable, involved and supported appointees, so TAM was appointed guardian and BYM alternative guardian for a limited two-year order confined to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Review of Guardianship Order / End of Term Statutory Review of Guardianship Order
Outcome
The guardianship order made on 2 July 2019 was reviewed, renewed and varied as a continuing limited guardianship order for two years from 21 July 2020, appointing TAM as guardian and BYM as alternative guardian with a restrictive practices function.
Legal Topics
['review of Guardianship Order' 'restrictive Practices' 'chemical Restraint' 'environmental Restraint' 'mechanical Restraint' 'seclusion' 'supported Independent Living' 'ndis Behaviour Support']
['guardianship' 'disability Law'] ['review of Guardianship Order' 'restrictive Practices' 'chemical Restraint' 'environmental Restraint' 'mechanical Restraint' 'seclusion' 'supported Independent Living' 'ndis Behaviour Support']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Review of Guardianship Order / End of Term Statutory Review of Guardianship Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether DZM continues to have a disability which prevents him from being able to make important life decisions and is a person for whom a further guardianship order could be made.' 'Whether a further guardianship order should be made and, if so, what functions should be included.' 'Whether the restrictive practices function should include mechanical restraint, environmental restraint, seclusion and chemical restraint.' 'Whether accommodation, services, health care and medical or dental treatment functions were necessary in the guardianship order.' 'Who should be appointed as guardian and alternative guardian.' 'How long the guardianship order should last.']

Ratio Decidendi

DZM continued to have an intellectual disability and other diagnoses that prevented him from making important life decisions, and a further guardianship order was necessary to authorise consent to restrictive practices identified in his behaviour support plan. The Tribunal was not persuaded that accommodation, services, health care or medical and dental functions were necessary because TAM could make those decisions without the formality of a guardianship order, including as DZM's person responsible or NDIS nominee. TAM and BYM remained suitable, involved and supported appointees, so TAM was appointed guardian and BYM alternative guardian for a limited two-year order confined to...

Court Disposition

The guardianship order made on 2 July 2019 was reviewed, renewed and varied as a continuing limited guardianship order for two years from 21 July 2020, appointing TAM as guardian and BYM as alternative guardian with a restrictive practices function.

Orders

  • ['TAM of [Address removed for publication.] is appointed as the guardian.' 'BYM of [Address removed for publication.] is appointed as the alternative guardian.' 'This is a continuing guardianship order for a period of two years from 21 July 2020.' 'This is a limited guardianship order giving the guardian custody of...