CGF v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 130

CGF v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 130

The Tribunal refused an extension of time because the approximately six-month delay was very significant, the applicant did not provide an adequate explanation, his conduct indicated delay and caused ongoing financial disadvantage to his mother, strict compliance with the lodgement rules was not shown to cause substantial injustice, and the proposed review did not have even a fairly arguable case. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of NSW Trustee and Guardian Decision to Sell Property / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge an Application for Review and Application for Review
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application for review dismissed.
Legal Topics
['nsw Trustee and Guardian' 'decision to Sell Property' 'extension of Time' 'administrative Review' 'financial Management Order']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship and Financial Management'] ['nsw Trustee and Guardian' 'decision to Sell Property' 'extension of Time' 'administrative Review' 'financial Management Order']

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 NSW Trustee and Guardian Decision to Sell Property / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge an Application for Review and Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to lodge an application for review of the NSW Trustee and Guardian's internal review decision." "Whether the application for review of the decision to sell the applicant's mother's house should proceed or be dismissed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused an extension of time because the approximately six-month delay was very significant, the applicant did not provide an adequate explanation, his conduct indicated delay and caused ongoing financial disadvantage to his mother, strict compliance with the lodgement rules was not shown to cause substantial injustice, and the proposed review did not have even a fairly arguable case. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review is refused." "The application for review of the decision by the respondent to sell the applicant's mother's house is dismissed."]