JL v Protective Commissioner [2004] NSWADT 39

JL v Protective Commissioner [2004] NSWADT 39

The Protective Commissioner had not made any decision to sell or lease the property of JL's wife; the only step taken was to proceed with a sales/leasing report. Because there was no reviewable decision to sell or lease the property, there was no decision that could be stayed, and the application for review was premature and misconceived.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of an Administrative Decision and Urgent Stay / Principal Matter; Written Reasons for Orders Made on 23 December 2003
Outcome
Application for urgent stay refused; application for review dismissed as misconceived.
Legal Topics
['reviewable Decision' 'stay of Proceedings' 'protective Commissioner Functions' "sale or Lease of Protected Person's Property" 'misconceived Application']
['administrative Law' 'protected Estates' 'guardianship and Financial Management'] ['reviewable Decision' 'stay of Proceedings' 'protective Commissioner Functions' "sale or Lease of Protected Person's Property" 'misconceived Application']

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 Review of an Administrative Decision and Urgent Stay / Principal Matter; Written Reasons for Orders Made on 23 December 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Protective Commissioner had made a decision to sell or lease the property of JL's wife." 'Whether any decision was reviewable by the Tribunal under s.28A of the Protected Estates Act, 1983.' 'Whether there was a reviewable decision that could be stayed by the Tribunal.' "Whether JL's application for review was misconceived under s.73(5)(h) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act, 1997."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Protective Commissioner had not made any decision to sell or lease the property of JL's wife; the only step taken was to proceed with a sales/leasing report. Because there was no reviewable decision to sell or lease the property, there was no decision that could be stayed, and the application for review was premature and misconceived.

Court Disposition

Application for urgent stay refused; application for review dismissed as misconceived.

Orders

  • ["JL's application for an urgent stay is refused as the Commissioner has made no decision in respect of his wife's property." "JL's application for a review of the Protective Commissioner's decision to sell or lease his wife's property is dismissed under s.73(5)(h) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act as the...