ZAH v ZAI [2016] NSWCATAP 242

ZAH v ZAI [2016] NSWCATAP 242

ZAH's various appeals and applications were either not made out on questions of law or were substantially out of time without adequate justification. The Tribunal had satisfied its statutory obligations in making findings of fact, considering relevant matters, and there was no legal error made in the exercise of discretion or refusal of adjournments. The current guardianship order was properly reviewed, and no extension of time was warranted. Applications for adjournment, admission of further evidence, and for costs were properly refused.

Parties
Appellant: ZAH; First Respondent: ZAI; Second Respondent: ZAK; Third Respondent: ZAJ; Fourth Respondent: ZCH; Fifth Respondent: NSW Trustee and Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision Following Internal Appeal From Guardianship Division Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; all applications refused
Legal Topics
Guardianship Orders, Appointment of Guardians, Adjournment, Leave to Appeal, Costs, Jurisdiction, Extension of Time, Review of Orders, Procedural Fairness
Guardianship Civil Procedure Guardianship Orders Appointment of Guardians Adjournment Leave to Appeal Costs Jurisdiction +3 more

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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZAH

Appellant

ZAI

First Respondent

ZAK

Second Respondent

ZAJ

Third Respondent

ZCH

Fourth Respondent

NSW Trustee and Guardian

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision Following Internal Appeal From Guardianship Division Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in making/varying guardianship and financial management orders
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to appeal interlocutory orders
  3. 3 Whether extension of time should be granted for appeals out of time

Ratio Decidendi

ZAH's various appeals and applications were either not made out on questions of law or were substantially out of time without adequate justification. The Tribunal had satisfied its statutory obligations in making findings of fact, considering relevant matters, and there was no legal error made in the exercise of discretion or refusal of adjournments. The current guardianship order was properly reviewed, and no extension of time was warranted. Applications for adjournment, admission of further evidence, and for costs were properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; all applications refused

Orders

  • The Appellant's application for an adjournment of the hearing is refused.
  • Leave is refused for the Appellant to appeal from the decision made on 20 July 2015 to refuse an application for adjournment.