Foundations Care Ltd v Children’s Guardian (No. 2) [2020] NSWCATAD 258

Foundations Care Ltd v Children’s Guardian (No. 2) [2020] NSWCATAD 258

The applications could be determined on the papers because the issues could be adequately determined from the written submissions and material. Section 65 applied to the administrative review proceedings, and Foundations Care Ltd was captured as a person for the purposes of s 65(2), but s 65(3) did not prohibit publication of the Tribunal's official reasons. Any risk of identifying children was properly addressed by redacting identifying material about children, not by suppressing the applicant's name. Open justice and the public interest in decisions about accreditation of bodies with statutory responsibility for children in out-of-home care favoured publication of the applicant's name...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review; Applications Concerning Non Publication, Redactions and Publication or Broadcast of Names / On the Papers After Substantive Decision
Outcome
The applicant's application for a non-publication order was dismissed; the respondent's application for an order under s 65(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) was dismissed; hearings of both applications were dispensed with.
Legal Topics
['non Publication Orders' 'publication Restrictions' 'redaction of Identifying Material Concerning Children' 'open Justice' 'tribunal Consent Under S 65(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['non Publication Orders' 'publication Restrictions' 'redaction of Identifying Material Concerning Children' 'open Justice' 'tribunal Consent Under S 65(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)']

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

Administrative Review; Applications Concerning Non Publication, Redactions and Publication or Broadcast of Names / On the Papers After Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a hearing of the applicant's application for a non-publication order and the respondent's application for redactions and publication orders should be dispensed with." "Whether Foundations Care Ltd's name and identifying material should be subject to a non-publication order or redacted from the Tribunal's published reasons." 'Whether children in care should be protected by redaction of identifying details in the published reasons.' "Whether the Tribunal had power under s 65(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to make a general order permitting any person to publish or broadcast names appearing within the Tribunal's official report."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applications could be determined on the papers because the issues could be adequately determined from the written submissions and material. Section 65 applied to the administrative review proceedings, and Foundations Care Ltd was captured as a person for the purposes of s 65(2), but s 65(3) did not prohibit publication of the Tribunal's official reasons. Any risk of identifying children was properly addressed by redacting identifying material about children, not by suppressing the applicant's name. Open justice and the public interest in decisions about accreditation of bodies with statutory responsibility for children in out-of-home care favoured publication of the applicant's name...

Court Disposition

The applicant's application for a non-publication order was dismissed; the respondent's application for an order under s 65(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) was dismissed; hearings of both applications were dispensed with.

Orders

  • ["A hearing of the applicant's application for a non-publication order is dispensed with." "A hearing of the respondent's application for redactions and for orders permitting the publication and broadcast of certain names is dispensed with." "The applicant's application for a non-publication order is dismissed."...