UA v NSW Trustee and Guardian, UD, UE and UF [2010] NSWADTAP 62

UA v NSW Trustee and Guardian, UD, UE and UF [2010] NSWADTAP 62

The appeal failed because UA was given an adequate opportunity to respond to material and to question UE, no adjournment or opportunity to question was sought, and there was no breach of procedural fairness. The Guardianship Tribunal's reason that the powers of attorney were inoperative during the financial management order was adequate, and it was open to infer that the Tribunal saw no utility in review. The receipt of documents relevant to capacity did not constitute a decision under s 36(1) to review a power of attorney.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2010
Procedural Posture
External Appeal / Appeal on a Question of Law From a Guardianship Tribunal Decision Not to Review Powers of Attorney
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'review of Powers of Attorney' 'financial Management Order' 'managed Estate']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship' 'powers of Attorney'] ['procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'review of Powers of Attorney' 'financial Management Order' 'managed Estate']

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

External Appeal / Appeal on a Question of Law From a Guardianship Tribunal Decision Not to Review Powers of Attorney

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Guardianship Tribunal failed to afford UA procedural fairness by not giving her a reasonable opportunity to respond to UE's statement and by failing to allow her to question UE." 'Whether the Guardianship Tribunal gave adequate reasons for deciding not to review the powers of attorney.' "Whether receiving documents relevant to UF's capacity constituted a decision to review the powers of attorney under s 36(1) of the Powers of Attorney Act 2003."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because UA was given an adequate opportunity to respond to material and to question UE, no adjournment or opportunity to question was sought, and there was no breach of procedural fairness. The Guardianship Tribunal's reason that the powers of attorney were inoperative during the financial management order was adequate, and it was open to infer that the Tribunal saw no utility in review. The receipt of documents relevant to capacity did not constitute a decision under s 36(1) to review a power of attorney.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed']