FW and FX v Protective Commissioner [2009] NSWADT 36

FW and FX v Protective Commissioner [2009] NSWADT 36

Both parties agreed that the decision to wind up the business was correct and preferable. There was no persuasive reason to further delay the winding up, as FW is not involved in the business, which is running at a loss, and arguments about pending pension changes did not justify a delay.

Parties
Applicant: FW; Applicant: FX; Respondent: Protective Commissioner
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Review of Administrative Decision / Merits Review Before NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal
Outcome
affirmed
Legal Topics
Review of Protective Commissioner Decision, Management of Protected Estates, Retirement and Transfer of Farming Businesses
Guardianship Administrative Law Review of Protective Commissioner Decision Management of Protected Estates Retirement and Transfer of Farming Businesses

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FW

Applicant

FX

Applicant

Protective Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review of Administrative Decision / Merits Review Before NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to wind up the sole trader business in the name of FW should be affirmed or delayed

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties agreed that the decision to wind up the business was correct and preferable. There was no persuasive reason to further delay the winding up, as FW is not involved in the business, which is running at a loss, and arguments about pending pension changes did not justify a delay.

Court Disposition

affirmed

Orders

  • The decision of the Protective Commissioner to wind up the sole trader business in the name of FW is affirmed.