SAB v SEM & Ors [2013] NSWSC 253

SAB v SEM & Ors [2013] NSWSC 253

The amended summons was dismissed because no alleged error of law was established and the alleged factual errors did not justify leave. The Tribunal had regard to BM's previously expressed views in the enduring guardianship instrument and statutory declaration, gave clear and adequate reasons for its findings about the bleeding episode, and was entitled to consider the plaintiff's conflict of financial interest without first finding an undue conflict under s 17(1)(b). In any event, unchallenged findings about the plaintiff's decision-making would independently support the Tribunal's orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 67 of the Guardianship Act 1987 From Guardianship Tribunal Guardianship Orders / Final Determination of Amended Summons
Outcome
Amended summons dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['appeal on a Question of Law' 'leave to Appeal on Questions of Fact' 'guardianship Orders' 'enduring Guardian' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'conflict of Financial Interest' 'views of Protected Person']
['equity' 'guardianship' 'administrative Law'] ['appeal on a Question of Law' 'leave to Appeal on Questions of Fact' 'guardianship Orders' 'enduring Guardian' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'conflict of Financial Interest' 'views of Protected Person']

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

Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 67 of the Guardianship Act 1987 From Guardianship Tribunal Guardianship Orders / Final Determination of Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Guardianship Tribunal failed to have regard to BM's views contrary to s 14(2)(a)(i) of the Guardianship Act 1987." "Whether the Guardianship Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring evidence about BM's bleeding episode on 15 July 2011." 'Whether the Guardianship Tribunal applied an incorrect threshold by considering a conflict of financial interest without finding an undue conflict under s 17(1)(b).' 'Whether any alleged factual errors warranted leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended summons was dismissed because no alleged error of law was established and the alleged factual errors did not justify leave. The Tribunal had regard to BM's previously expressed views in the enduring guardianship instrument and statutory declaration, gave clear and adequate reasons for its findings about the bleeding episode, and was entitled to consider the plaintiff's conflict of financial interest without first finding an undue conflict under s 17(1)(b). In any event, unchallenged findings about the plaintiff's decision-making would independently support the Tribunal's orders.

Court Disposition

Amended summons dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['The amended summons be dismissed.' "The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs."]