ZDP v ZDQ [2017] NSWCATAP 204

ZDP v ZDQ [2017] NSWCATAP 204

The Tribunal did not deny procedural fairness to the appellant, nor was the finding that ZDQ was not incapable of managing his affairs against the weight of the evidence or manifestly in error. There was insufficient evidence that ZDQ was incapable of managing his affairs, including risk of exploitation, and no grounds for appellate intervention or for granting a financial management order.

Parties
Appellant: ZDP; First Respondent: ZDQ; Second Respondent: ZDT; Third Respondent: ZDS; Fourth Respondent: NSW Trustee and Guardian; Separate Representative: N Danis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing and Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Financial Management Order, Capacity
Guardianship Law Administrative Law Appeal Procedural Fairness Financial Management Order Capacity

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZDP

Appellant

ZDQ

First Respondent

ZDT

Second Respondent

ZDS

Third Respondent

NSW Trustee and Guardian

Fourth Respondent

N Danis

Separate Representative

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Hearing and Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal denied the appellant procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the finding that ZDQ is not incapable of managing his affairs was against the weight of the evidence
  3. 3 Whether it was in ZDQ's best interests to have a financial management order due to vulnerability to exploitation

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not deny procedural fairness to the appellant, nor was the finding that ZDQ was not incapable of managing his affairs against the weight of the evidence or manifestly in error. There was insufficient evidence that ZDQ was incapable of managing his affairs, including risk of exploitation, and no grounds for appellate intervention or for granting a financial management order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.