GBW v Barnardos Australia [2024] NSWCATAD 168

GBW v Barnardos Australia [2024] NSWCATAD 168

The extension of time was refused because the review application was filed about four to five months out of time, there were no substantial reasons for the delay, the applicant did not have an arguable case and the proposed review lacked substantial merit, the removal decision was the correct and preferable decision on the evidence, and granting an extension would significantly prejudice the child by undermining stability, permanency planning, and the child's safety, welfare and well-being.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review Under Section 245(1)(c) of the Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 With an Application for Extension of Time / Preliminary Determination on the Papers of the Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
The application for an extension of time was refused and the application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'administratively Reviewable Decision' 'authorised Carer' 'removal of Responsibility for Daily Care and Control' 'paramountcy Principle' 'permanent Placement and Stability of Care']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'out of Home Care'] ['extension of Time' 'administratively Reviewable Decision' 'authorised Carer' 'removal of Responsibility for Daily Care and Control' 'paramountcy Principle' 'permanent Placement and Stability of Care']

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 245(1)(c) of the Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 With an Application for Extension of Time / Preliminary Determination on the Papers of the Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file a review application.' 'Whether there was a persuasive reason for the delay in filing the review application.' 'Whether the applicant had an arguable case that the removal decision was not the correct and preferable decision.' "Whether granting an extension would cause prejudice to the respondent or the child, having regard to the child's safety, welfare and well-being."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the review application was filed about four to five months out of time, there were no substantial reasons for the delay, the applicant did not have an arguable case and the proposed review lacked substantial merit, the removal decision was the correct and preferable decision on the evidence, and granting an extension would significantly prejudice the child by undermining stability, permanency planning, and the child's safety, welfare and well-being.

Court Disposition

The application for an extension of time was refused and the application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to file a review application is refused.' 'The application is dismissed.']