U v Protective Commissioner [2007] NSWADT 238

U v Protective Commissioner [2007] NSWADT 238

Because Mr Flynn was the subject of a confirmed finding of professional misconduct in relation to work for another client of the Office of the Protective Commissioner, it was inappropriate for the Office to retain him where it needed confidence in agents assisting with estate management. Because Mr Krouk practised in Sydney and U could not have face-to-face appointments with him, he was also not appropriate. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to attempt to secure more localised, appropriate and skilled family law representation for U as an alternative to either firm.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Decision of the Protective Commissioner Under S 28 a of the Protected Estates Act 1983 / Principal Matter
Outcome
Decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
['review of Protective Commissioner Decision' 'power to Employ Agents' "retention of Solicitors for Protected Person's Estate" 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'protected Estates'] ['review of Protective Commissioner Decision' 'power to Employ Agents' "retention of Solicitors for Protected Person's Estate" 'correct and Preferable Decision']

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 a Decision of the Protective Commissioner Under S 28 a of the Protected Estates Act 1983 / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the internal review decision that attempts be made to secure more localised, appropriate and skilled family law representation for U, as an alternative to Moss Krouk & Associates or Mark Flynn & Associates Pty Ltd, was the correct and preferable decision within the meaning of s63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Flynn was the subject of a confirmed finding of professional misconduct in relation to work for another client of the Office of the Protective Commissioner, it was inappropriate for the Office to retain him where it needed confidence in agents assisting with estate management. Because Mr Krouk practised in Sydney and U could not have face-to-face appointments with him, he was also not appropriate. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to attempt to secure more localised, appropriate and skilled family law representation for U as an alternative to either firm.

Court Disposition

Decision affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision that attempts be made to secure more localised, appropriate and skilled family law representation for U as an alternative to the use of either Moss Krouk & Associates or Mark Flynn & Associates Pty Ltd is affirmed.']