CMD v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWSC 1348

CMD v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWSC 1348

The Tribunal did not err in its statutory task: it was not required to make positive findings or resolve all inconsistencies in the child's versions to assess whether the plaintiff posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Procedural fairness was not denied, as material relied upon was served in...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check' 'tribunal Statutory Function' 'procedural Fairness' 'evidence Assessment']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check' 'tribunal Statutory Function' 'procedural Fairness' 'evidence Assessment']

Source-derived case record

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 Law Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal misunderstood its statutory function under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)' 'Whether procedural fairness was denied to the plaintiff' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision' 'Whether the Tribunal took into account irrelevant or extraneous considerations' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to have regard to mandatory statutory considerations' "Whether the Tribunal's reasoning was illogical or unreasonable"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in its statutory task: it was not required to make positive findings or resolve all inconsistencies in the child's versions to assess whether the plaintiff posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Procedural fairness was not denied, as material relied upon was served in advance and issues were apparent to the plaintiff. The Tribunal's reasons were adequate and the reasoning process was intelligible and justified. The Tribunal did not take into account the applicant's right to silence as an adverse factor. No mandatory considerations were omitted. The Tribunal’s evaluative conclusion as to risk was not unreasonable or illogical.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']