GR v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice; Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice v BW (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCA 157
Section 98(2A) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), as it stood prior to amendment effective 23 June 2021, did not require the Children's Court to appoint a guardian ad litem for a child or young person incapable of giving proper instructions; rather, it directed the Court to consider discretionary factors under s 100, and only appoint if special circumstances and benefit are established. The primary judge's mandatory construction was incorrect, and failure to consider these factors constituted error.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 July 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal and Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; orders appointing guardians ad litem quashed; no orders as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['care Proceedings' 'appointment of Guardian Ad Litem' 'statutory Construction' 'interpretation of Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 (nsw)']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether s 98(2A) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) requires mandatory or discretionary appointment of a guardian ad litem' 'Whether a child or young person is a party to proceedings under the Care Act' 'Whether the Court adequately considered discretionary factors under s 100 when appointing a guardian ad litem']
Ratio Decidendi
Section 98(2A) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), as it stood prior to amendment effective 23 June 2021, did not require the Children's Court to appoint a guardian ad litem for a child or young person incapable of giving proper instructions; rather, it directed the Court to consider discretionary factors under s 100, and only appoint if special circumstances and benefit are established. The primary judge's mandatory construction was incorrect, and failure to consider these factors constituted error.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; orders appointing guardians ad litem quashed; no orders as to costs.
Orders
- ['Appeal allowed (GR v Secretary)' 'Set aside both order 2 made on 17 November 2020 and order made on 27 May 2021 appointing Mr William Hoyles as guardian ad litem for AB' 'No order as to costs in this Court' 'Separate questions (BW) answered as follows: Question 1 and 2 not necessary to answer; Question 3 – s...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment