DGR v Public Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 267

DGR v Public Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 267

The Tribunal held that the correct and preferable decision was for N to remain living at H aged care facility. It gave significant weight to Dr Wallace's expert evidence that N had moderate dementia, was well settled, and would likely suffer significant negative impacts to her psychological wellbeing, cognition, mood and behaviour if moved against her wishes. The evidence of CB and other witnesses supported that N was happy and receiving at least adequate care. The accreditation sanction occurred after the Public Guardian's decision, the facility had changed hands, accreditation was not revoked, and N was not identified as being at immediate or severe risk. The Public Guardian had...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of a Decision of the Public Guardian Under the Guardianship Act 1987 (nsw) / Final Decision on Administrative Review
Outcome
Decision affirmed
Legal Topics
['review of Public Guardian Accommodation Decision' 'welfare and Interests of Person Under Guardianship' 'dementia and Capacity to Express Accommodation Preferences' 'aged Care Facility Accreditation and Quality Concerns' 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship' 'aged Care'] ['review of Public Guardian Accommodation Decision' 'welfare and Interests of Person Under Guardianship' 'dementia and Capacity to Express Accommodation Preferences' 'aged Care Facility Accreditation and Quality Concerns' 'correct and Preferable Decision']

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 Administrative Review of a Decision of the Public Guardian Under the Guardianship Act 1987 (nsw) / Final Decision on Administrative Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Public Guardian's decision that N should remain living at H aged care facility was the correct and preferable decision." "Whether N's welfare and interests were best served by remaining at H aged care facility or by transfer to another aged care facility with specialised dementia programs." "Whether concerns about H aged care facility's accreditation, care standards and alleged medical neglect justified reversing the Public Guardian's decision." "What weight should be given to N's expressed wishes and to the expert neuropsychological evidence about the likely effect of moving her."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the correct and preferable decision was for N to remain living at H aged care facility. It gave significant weight to Dr Wallace's expert evidence that N had moderate dementia, was well settled, and would likely suffer significant negative impacts to her psychological wellbeing, cognition, mood and behaviour if moved against her wishes. The evidence of CB and other witnesses supported that N was happy and receiving at least adequate care. The accreditation sanction occurred after the Public Guardian's decision, the facility had changed hands, accreditation was not revoked, and N was not identified as being at immediate or severe risk. The Public Guardian had...

Court Disposition

Decision affirmed

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Public Guardian made on 29 November 2017 that N should remain living at H aged care facility.']