S v S [2001] NSWSC 146

S v S [2001] NSWSC 146

Leave to appeal was refused because the pleaded grounds were predominantly pure fact-finding matters, the evidence did not indicate gross error or an unorthodox or unfair fact-finding process by the Tribunal, and the cost comparison concerning the Protective Commissioner and the plaintiff was only one factor and was not supported by sufficient material to show that leave should be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Decision of the Guardianship Tribunal of New South Wales / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['guardianship Tribunal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'management of Affairs of Incapable Person' 'protective Commissioner' 'parens Patriae Jurisdiction']
['mental Health' 'guardianship' 'equity'] ['guardianship Tribunal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'management of Affairs of Incapable Person' 'protective Commissioner' 'parens Patriae Jurisdiction']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Decision of the Guardianship Tribunal of New South Wales / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 67 of the Guardianship Act 1997 for an appeal on grounds not involving matters of law.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to place sufficient weight on evidence that the plaintiff was a proper manager.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in considering that the Protective Commissioner was as inexpensive as circumstances permit.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in considering that the plaintiff was in a position of conflict of interest with the incapable person.' 'Whether the affairs of the incapable person should be managed by the Protective Commissioner or the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the pleaded grounds were predominantly pure fact-finding matters, the evidence did not indicate gross error or an unorthodox or unfair fact-finding process by the Tribunal, and the cost comparison concerning the Protective Commissioner and the plaintiff was only one factor and was not supported by sufficient material to show that leave should be granted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused with costs.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']