RU v Protective Commissioner [2005] NSWADT 279

RU v Protective Commissioner [2005] NSWADT 279

Because RU and his mother owned only two-fifths of the property, RU lacked funds to repair or develop it, and the majority co-owners had instructed their solicitor to sell by public auction, there was no practical alternative to agreeing to sale; any further consideration of RU's wishes or other options would not change that result, so the Protective Commissioner's decision was the correct and preferable decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Review of a Decision of the Protective Commissioner Concerning Management of a Protected Estate / Principal Matter
Outcome
The decision of the Protective Commissioner to sell RU's share of the property in which he resides is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['protective Commissioner Powers as to Property' "sale of Protected Person's Share in Property" 'joinder of Parties' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'internal Review']
['administrative Law' 'protected Estates' 'property Law'] ['protective Commissioner Powers as to Property' "sale of Protected Person's Share in Property" 'joinder of Parties' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'internal Review']

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

Review of a Decision of the Protective Commissioner Concerning Management of a Protected Estate / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should Mr Moss be joined as a party?' 'What is the decision that the Tribunal has been asked to review and does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to review it?' 'Should the Tribunal review the decision in the absence of an internal review?' 'What is the correct and preferable decision?']

Ratio Decidendi

Because RU and his mother owned only two-fifths of the property, RU lacked funds to repair or develop it, and the majority co-owners had instructed their solicitor to sell by public auction, there was no practical alternative to agreeing to sale; any further consideration of RU's wishes or other options would not change that result, so the Protective Commissioner's decision was the correct and preferable decision.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Protective Commissioner to sell RU's share of the property in which he resides is affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Protective Commissioner to sell RU's share of the property in which he resides is affirmed"]