CNZ v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 124

CNZ v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 124

The Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities and having regard to all relevant evidence and statutory considerations, that the applicant does pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children and has not rebutted the presumption under section 28(7). Therefore, the application for an enabling order should be refused.

Parties
Applicant: CNZ; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application for enabling order refused
Legal Topics
Working With Children Check, Risk Assessment, Enabling Orders, Disqualification, Administrative Review
Administrative Law Child Protection Equal Opportunity Working With Children Check Risk Assessment Enabling Orders Disqualification Administrative Review

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CNZ

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for an Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has rebutted the statutory presumption of risk under section 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012
  3. 3 Whether enabling order should be granted to applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities and having regard to all relevant evidence and statutory considerations, that the applicant does pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children and has not rebutted the presumption under section 28(7). Therefore, the application for an enabling order should be refused.

Court Disposition

Application for enabling order refused

Orders

  • The applicant's application for an enabling order is refused.