AAD v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2013] NSWADTAP 40

AAD v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2013] NSWADTAP 40

The Guardianship Tribunal did not make an error of law by failing to initiate an own motion review of the financial management order because AAD's application sought replacement of the current financial manager, not revocation of the order, and the matters relied on did not establish a required basis for revocation of the financial management order. Refusing APY, who was not a party and whose interests were not affected by the application, the opportunity to speak did not breach procedural fairness, particularly where the Tribunal could inform itself as it thought fit. Leave to appeal on factual grounds was refused because the alleged errors or omissions did not show an unorthodox or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2013
Procedural Posture
External Appeal From a Guardianship Tribunal Decision / Appeal Against Confirmation of Appointment of the NSW Trustee as Financial Manager
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['external Appeal' 'financial Management Order' 'appointment of Financial Manager' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal on Grounds Other Than a Question of Law' 'nsw Trustee and Guardian Fees']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship and Financial Management'] ['external Appeal' 'financial Management Order' 'appointment of Financial Manager' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal on Grounds Other Than a Question of Law' 'nsw Trustee and Guardian Fees']

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

External Appeal From a Guardianship Tribunal Decision / Appeal Against Confirmation of Appointment of the NSW Trustee as Financial Manager

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Guardianship Tribunal erred in law by failing to review the financial management order under Guardianship Act 1987, s 25U(2), rather than only reviewing the appointment of the financial manager.' 'Whether the Guardianship Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing to allow APY, a non-party, to give oral evidence or make submissions at the hearing.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal on grounds other than a question of law concerning alleged factual errors, omitted findings and failure to explore evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Guardianship Tribunal did not make an error of law by failing to initiate an own motion review of the financial management order because AAD's application sought replacement of the current financial manager, not revocation of the order, and the matters relied on did not establish a required basis for revocation of the financial management order. Refusing APY, who was not a party and whose interests were not affected by the application, the opportunity to speak did not breach procedural fairness, particularly where the Tribunal could inform itself as it thought fit. Leave to appeal on factual grounds was refused because the alleged errors or omissions did not show an unorthodox or...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal on grounds other than a question of law is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']