ECK v Public Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 197

ECK v Public Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 197

The Tribunal lacked administrative review jurisdiction because the applicant sought to challenge Mr Hastings' conduct when conducting an internal review, and no enabling legislation provided for administrative review by the Tribunal of conduct during an internal review. The applicant made plain that he was not...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Merits Review / Application to the Tribunal for Review of Conduct of an Internal Reviewer; Jurisdiction Determined
Outcome
Non-publication order made; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['administrative Review Jurisdiction' 'public Guardian Access Decision' 'internal Review Conduct' 'non Publication Order']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship'] ['administrative Review Jurisdiction' 'public Guardian Access Decision' 'internal Review Conduct' 'non Publication Order']

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 Review / Merits Review / Application to the Tribunal for Review of Conduct of an Internal Reviewer; Jurisdiction Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the conduct of the Public Guardian's internal reviewer was an administratively reviewable decision." 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the conduct or decision identified by the applicant.' 'Whether a non-publication order should be made to protect the identities of persons involved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacked administrative review jurisdiction because the applicant sought to challenge Mr Hastings' conduct when conducting an internal review, and no enabling legislation provided for administrative review by the Tribunal of conduct during an internal review. The applicant made plain that he was not seeking review of the Public Guardian's access decision itself. The application was therefore misconceived and was dismissed pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Non-publication order made; application dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The disclosure of the names of the applicant, the applicant's wife, the applicant's daughter (who is the subject of these proceedings) and the applicant's daughter's mother, is prohibited." 'The application is dismissed.']