TP v Public Trustee and Guardian [2010] NSWADTAP 65
The Appeal Panel found that the Guardianship Tribunal did take TR's views into consideration, despite inconsistency in those views, and did not breach procedural fairness requirements. The Appeal Panel refused leave to appeal on the merits, finding no unorthodox or unfair process and upholding the Guardianship Tribunal's orders.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 October 2010
- Procedural Posture
- External Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed, leave refused on merits, Tribunal orders affirmed
- Legal Topics
- ['procedural Fairness' 'views of Subject Person' 'appointment and Revocation of Enduring Guardian' 'capacity Assessments']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
External Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Guardianship Tribunal failed to take TR's views into consideration" 'Whether TP was afforded procedural fairness and a reasonable opportunity to present his case or respond to medical evidence' 'Whether the Appeal Panel should grant leave to appeal on the merits regarding factual determinations about family conflict and medical evidence']
Ratio Decidendi
The Appeal Panel found that the Guardianship Tribunal did take TR's views into consideration, despite inconsistency in those views, and did not breach procedural fairness requirements. The Appeal Panel refused leave to appeal on the merits, finding no unorthodox or unfair process and upholding the Guardianship Tribunal's orders.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed, leave refused on merits, Tribunal orders affirmed
Orders
- ['Leave is refused for the appeal to be made on grounds other than a question of law' "The Guardianship Tribunal's orders made on 11 March 2010 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