AF v Roads and Maritime Services (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 45

AF v Roads and Maritime Services (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 45

Although process challenging the appointment of a representative should ordinarily be filed by the appointed representative rather than directly by the represented person, the Appeal Panel did not strike out AF's appeal as incompetent in the circumstances. Leave to appeal was refused as a matter of discretion because the substantive proceedings should continue at first instance, the Tribunal had proceeded in an orthodox way in considering AF's capacity, any appeal against the appointment had little prospect of success, the old medical report did not play any significant role, and AF's conduct and submissions supported the Tribunal's assessment that representation was required. As leave...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Appointing a Representative Under S 71(4) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Legal Topics
['appointment of Litigation Representative' 'capacity to Conduct Proceedings' 'standing to Appeal' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'suppression Orders']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'anti Discrimination'] ['appointment of Litigation Representative' 'capacity to Conduct Proceedings' 'standing to Appeal' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'suppression Orders']

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

Interlocutory Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Appointing a Representative Under S 71(4) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a person for whom a representative has been appointed under s 71(4) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 can personally lodge an appeal and interlocutory applications challenging that appointment.' 'Whether leave should be granted for an interlocutory appeal against the decision appointing a guardian from the Guardian Ad Litem Panel to represent AF.' 'Whether the Appeal Panel should deal with the stay application and suppression order application if leave to appeal is refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although process challenging the appointment of a representative should ordinarily be filed by the appointed representative rather than directly by the represented person, the Appeal Panel did not strike out AF's appeal as incompetent in the circumstances. Leave to appeal was refused as a matter of discretion because the substantive proceedings should continue at first instance, the Tribunal had proceeded in an orthodox way in considering AF's capacity, any appeal against the appointment had little prospect of success, the old medical report did not play any significant role, and AF's conduct and submissions supported the Tribunal's assessment that representation was required. As leave...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.']