CDJ v Public Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 275

CDJ v Public Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 275

The correct and preferable decision was to vary the Public Guardian's decision denying all access because the circumstances existing at the time of the applicant's eviction had changed: CJM had 24-hour care, the applicant no longer lived in the apartment, the risk of financial exploitation no longer arose under the financial management order, and there was no evidence that the applicant had financially exploited CJM. The Tribunal found a longstanding friendship between CJM and the applicant, that CJM spoke of the applicant warmly and fondly and had asked for her, and that some contact would be beneficial to CJM, provided it occurred on limited terms protecting CJM's welfare and interests.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Public Guardian Access Decision Concerning a Person Subject to Guardianship / Principal Judgment; Review of Decision Dated 27 July 2015
Outcome
The decision under review was varied.
Legal Topics
['review of Access Decision' 'welfare and Interests of Person Subject to Guardianship' 'public Guardian Powers' 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship'] ['review of Access Decision' 'welfare and Interests of Person Subject to Guardianship' 'public Guardian Powers' 'correct and Preferable Decision']

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

Administrative Review of Public Guardian Access Decision Concerning a Person Subject to Guardianship / Principal Judgment; Review of Decision Dated 27 July 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Public Guardian, and on review the Tribunal, had power to make a decision regarding access to CJM' "To what extent CJM's wishes should be taken into account by the Tribunal" "Whether the applicant's behaviour had impacted negatively on CJM in the past and was likely to impact upon her negatively in the future" 'Whether it would be in the welfare and interests of CJM to see the applicant and, if so, on what terms']

Ratio Decidendi

The correct and preferable decision was to vary the Public Guardian's decision denying all access because the circumstances existing at the time of the applicant's eviction had changed: CJM had 24-hour care, the applicant no longer lived in the apartment, the risk of financial exploitation no longer arose under the financial management order, and there was no evidence that the applicant had financially exploited CJM. The Tribunal found a longstanding friendship between CJM and the applicant, that CJM spoke of the applicant warmly and fondly and had asked for her, and that some contact would be beneficial to CJM, provided it occurred on limited terms protecting CJM's welfare and interests.

Court Disposition

The decision under review was varied.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Public Guardian dated 27 July 2015 to deny all access by the applicant to CJM is varied.' 'For a period of three months from the date of this order, the applicant should be granted access to CJM for a two-hour visit each fortnight at a time when CJM is not otherwise precluded from receiving...