P v P [2003] NSWSC 760

P v P [2003] NSWSC 760

The application was refused because no proper reason was made out to justify replacing the Protective Commissioner. The competing investment plans were not shown to favour one manager over the other, the fees were not shown to be materially different, and the delay in implementing a plan did not cause loss and was not sufficiently attributable to the Protective Commissioner to justify a change. The best interests of M did not require a change of manager.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Protected Estates Act 1983 for Change of Manager of a Protected Estate / Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application for change of manager refused; notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['change of Manager' 'protected Person' 'best Interests' 'investment Plan for Protected Estate']
['equity' 'protective Estates'] ['change of Manager' 'protected Person' 'best Interests' 'investment Plan for Protected Estate']

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 Under the Protected Estates Act 1983 for Change of Manager of a Protected Estate / Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether National Australia Trustees Limited should be appointed in place of the Protective Commissioner as manager of M's estate." "Whether delay in preparing and implementing an investment plan and the alleged breakdown in relationship with M's parents justified a change of manager." 'Whether the competing investment plans or fee arrangements provided a basis for preferring one manager over the other.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because no proper reason was made out to justify replacing the Protective Commissioner. The competing investment plans were not shown to favour one manager over the other, the fees were not shown to be materially different, and the delay in implementing a plan did not cause loss and was not sufficiently attributable to the Protective Commissioner to justify a change. The best interests of M did not require a change of manager.

Court Disposition

Application for change of manager refused; notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['I order the notice of motion be dismissed.' 'I order the costs of the applicant and the respondent be paid out of the protected estate.']