DOI v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 192

DOI v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 192

The Tribunal found that, except for the reimbursement and shortfall issues, DOI had not established that the Trustee failed to take the alleged actions or made the alleged improper decisions. The evidence showed that the Trustee responded to the complaints, prepared and provided budget reports, involved DOI in budget review processes, cancelled the official visitor arrangement after DOI's complaint, had not made decisions interfering with B's land tax records, and had provided correspondence concerning communications with other family members. Because DOI indicated that further reimbursement claims remained to be made, it would be otiose and contrary to the s39 principles to determine the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review Under Section 62 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (nsw) of Decisions Made by the NSW Trustee and Guardian as Financial Manager of A's Estate / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The decision to reimburse DOI and B for expenses incurred in relation to A and the payment of any shortfall was set aside and remitted; in all other respects the Trustee's decision made on 21 December 2018 was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['review of NSW Trustee and Guardian Decision' 'protected Person' 'financial Management Order' 'correct and Preferable Decision' 'interests and Welfare of Managed Person' 'budget and Reimbursement of Expenses']

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 Under Section 62 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (nsw) of Decisions Made by the NSW Trustee and Guardian as Financial Manager of A's Estate / Principal Judgment After Hearing

  1. 1 ["Whether the NSW Trustee and Guardian's decisions of 21 December 2018 should be reviewed as correct and preferable decisions." 'Whether DOI was an affected person for the purposes of s62 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW).' 'Whether the Trustee failed to acknowledge, investigate or remedy complaints made by DOI and B.' "Whether the Trustee failed to prepare or provide budgets for A's estate and failed to consult DOI in the annual budget review process." "Whether the Trustee's decision concerning reimbursement of expenses incurred by DOI and B for A, and any shortfall, should be affirmed or remitted." "Whether the Trustee made decisions affecting B's land tax information or obligations." 'Whether the Trustee failed to involve DOI in communications or decisions involving other family members.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, except for the reimbursement and shortfall issues, DOI had not established that the Trustee failed to take the alleged actions or made the alleged improper decisions. The evidence showed that the Trustee responded to the complaints, prepared and provided budget reports, involved DOI in budget review processes, cancelled the official visitor arrangement after DOI's complaint, had not made decisions interfering with B's land tax records, and had provided correspondence concerning communications with other family members. Because DOI indicated that further reimbursement claims remained to be made, it would be otiose and contrary to the s39 principles to determine the...

Court Disposition

The decision to reimburse DOI and B for expenses incurred in relation to A and the payment of any shortfall was set aside and remitted; in all other respects the Trustee's decision made on 21 December 2018 was affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's decision to reimburse DOI and B for expenses incurred in relation to A and the payment of any shortfall is set aside and remitted to the Respondent to make a further decision." 'In all other respects the decision of the Respondent made on 21 December 2018 is affirmed.']