CHI v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 151

CHI v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 151

The adjournment was granted because it would facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues by avoiding argument and determination of a jurisdictional issue already reserved before another Tribunal panel, and because procedural fairness required giving the unrepresented Applicant, who had no prior notice of the jurisdictional issue, an opportunity to seek legal representation and adequately prepare and present his case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under Section 28 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw) Concerning a Working With Children Check Clearance / Applications for Adjournment of the Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Applications for adjournment granted; substantive application to be relisted by the Registry.
Legal Topics
['adjournment Application' 'working With Children Check' 'enabling Order' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'procedural Fairness' 'legal Representation']
['administrative Law'] ['adjournment Application' 'working With Children Check' 'enabling Order' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'procedural Fairness' 'legal Representation']

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

Application for an Enabling Order Under Section 28 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw) Concerning a Working With Children Check Clearance / Applications for Adjournment of the Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the substantive hearing should be adjourned because a jurisdictional question about amendments to the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) was reserved before another Tribunal panel.' 'Whether the Applicant should be granted an adjournment to obtain legal representation where he had no prior notice that the jurisdictional issue would be raised.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was granted because it would facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues by avoiding argument and determination of a jurisdictional issue already reserved before another Tribunal panel, and because procedural fairness required giving the unrepresented Applicant, who had no prior notice of the jurisdictional issue, an opportunity to seek legal representation and adequately prepare and present his case.

Court Disposition

Applications for adjournment granted; substantive application to be relisted by the Registry.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's and Applicant's applications for an adjournment of the hearing are granted." 'The application filed on 27 November 2015 is to be set down on a date to be fixed by the Registry.']