IS v Public Guardian & Ors [2003] NSWADTAP 66
No question of law or substantive or procedural error of law was identified. The Tribunal's findings were based on logically probative evidence and it applied the correct legal tests. There was no suggestion of an unorthodox or unfair fact finding process, so it was not appropriate to grant leave to hear the merits of the decisions.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2003
- Procedural Posture
- External Appeal From Guardianship Tribunal Decisions / Appeal Panel Decision
- Outcome
- The decisions of the Tribunal are affirmed.
- Legal Topics
- ['guardianship Order' 'financial Management Order' 'external Appeal' 'error of Law' 'leave to Appeal on Merits']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
External Appeal From Guardianship Tribunal Decisions / Appeal Panel Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Guardianship Tribunal made a substantive or procedural error of law.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal on grounds other than a question of law, namely the merits of the decisions.' "Whether the Tribunal's findings about IS's disability and capacity were based on logically probative evidence and the correct legal tests."]
Ratio Decidendi
No question of law or substantive or procedural error of law was identified. The Tribunal's findings were based on logically probative evidence and it applied the correct legal tests. There was no suggestion of an unorthodox or unfair fact finding process, so it was not appropriate to grant leave to hear the merits of the decisions.
Court Disposition
The decisions of the Tribunal are affirmed.
Orders
- ['The decisions of the Tribunal are affirmed.']
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