CFL v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 114

CFL v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 114

The Tribunal, having considered all material and legislative requirements, found on the balance of probabilities that there is a real and appreciable risk of harm to children posed by the applicant and thus affirmed the Children's Guardian's decision to refuse a working with children check clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; decision of the Children's Guardian refusing clearance affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Checks' 'review of Administrative Decisions' 'risk Assessment' 'procedural Fairness' 'tribunal Powers']

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 / Principal Judgment

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety, welfare and well-being of children for the purpose of granting a working with children check clearance under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)' "Whether the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the Children's Guardian's refusal of clearance"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal, having considered all material and legislative requirements, found on the balance of probabilities that there is a real and appreciable risk of harm to children posed by the applicant and thus affirmed the Children's Guardian's decision to refuse a working with children check clearance.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; decision of the Children's Guardian refusing clearance affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 6 October 2015 to refuse the applicant's application for a Working with Children Check clearance is affirmed." "The application for review of the decision of the Children's Guardian filed 23 October 2015 is otherwise refused and dismissed."]