VU v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2011] NSWADTAP 45

VU v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2011] NSWADTAP 45

VU did not establish procedural unfairness because the late provision of documents before the 17 March 2010 hearing was addressed by an adjournment, and the Guardianship Tribunal did not vary the orders it might make on 16 July 2010 but acted within the four applications before it, which had been explained to the parties. VU also failed to establish apprehended bias: the alleged interruption, incorrect middle name, asserted factual errors and transcript issues did not objectively show that the Guardianship Tribunal might not bring an impartial mind to the questions for decision. Leave to appeal on the merits was refused because the Guardianship Tribunal's findings were available on the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2011
Procedural Posture
External Appeal From a Guardianship Tribunal Decision Concerning Guardianship and Financial Management Orders / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal on Questions of Law and Application for Leave to Appeal on the Merits
Outcome
Leave to appeal on the merits refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'guardianship Orders' 'financial Management Orders' 'enduring Guardianship' 'enduring Power of Attorney' 'leave to Appeal on the Merits']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship' 'powers of Attorney'] ['procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'guardianship Orders' 'financial Management Orders' 'enduring Guardianship' 'enduring Power of Attorney' 'leave to Appeal on the Merits']

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 From a Guardianship Tribunal Decision Concerning Guardianship and Financial Management Orders / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal on Questions of Law and Application for Leave to Appeal on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether VU was denied procedural fairness by late provision of documents before the 17 March 2010 hearing.' 'Whether VU was denied procedural fairness because the Guardianship Tribunal allegedly varied the decisions or orders it might make at the 16 July 2010 hearing without adequate notice or opportunity to respond.' "Whether the Guardianship Tribunal's conduct gave rise to apprehended bias." "Whether leave should be granted to appeal on the merits of the Guardianship Tribunal's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

VU did not establish procedural unfairness because the late provision of documents before the 17 March 2010 hearing was addressed by an adjournment, and the Guardianship Tribunal did not vary the orders it might make on 16 July 2010 but acted within the four applications before it, which had been explained to the parties. VU also failed to establish apprehended bias: the alleged interruption, incorrect middle name, asserted factual errors and transcript issues did not objectively show that the Guardianship Tribunal might not bring an impartial mind to the questions for decision. Leave to appeal on the merits was refused because the Guardianship Tribunal's findings were available on the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal on the merits refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal on the merits is refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']