VE v Protective Commissioner [2006] NSWADT 139

VE v Protective Commissioner [2006] NSWADT 139

The Family Court orders requiring VE to do all acts necessary to sell the Surfers Paradise property superseded the Protective Commissioner's earlier decision to sell that property. As a result, the Tribunal's conditional stay and the substantive application to review the Protective Commissioner's decision were redundant. The adjournment was refused because Mr Shaw had notice of the hearing, was appointed to act in VE's best interests rather than only on instructions, had adequate opportunity to prepare, and no procedural unfairness was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Protective Commissioner's Decision to Sell Property and Stay Related Applications / Principal Matter; Reasons Issued After Oral Decision
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; conditional stay revoked; application for review dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protective Commissioner Powers as to Property' 'review of Administrative Decision' 'stay of Decision' 'adjournment' 'procedural Fairness' 'family Court Property Orders']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship and Protected Estates' 'property'] ['protective Commissioner Powers as to Property' 'review of Administrative Decision' 'stay of Decision' 'adjournment' 'procedural Fairness' 'family Court Property Orders']

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 Protective Commissioner's Decision to Sell Property and Stay Related Applications / Principal Matter; Reasons Issued After Oral Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for an adjournment should be granted.' 'Whether the conditional stay order made on 19 January 2006 should be revoked.' "Whether the application for review of the Protective Commissioner's decision to sell the Surfers Paradise property should be dismissed because Family Court orders had superseded that decision." 'Whether there had been any breach of procedural fairness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Family Court orders requiring VE to do all acts necessary to sell the Surfers Paradise property superseded the Protective Commissioner's earlier decision to sell that property. As a result, the Tribunal's conditional stay and the substantive application to review the Protective Commissioner's decision were redundant. The adjournment was refused because Mr Shaw had notice of the hearing, was appointed to act in VE's best interests rather than only on instructions, had adequate opportunity to prepare, and no procedural unfairness was shown.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; conditional stay revoked; application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for an adjournment refused.' 'Conditional stay order made on 19 January 2006 revoked.' 'Application for review of decision to sell the Surfers Paradise property dismissed.']