ZEJ v ZEL [2018] NSWCATAP 252

ZEJ v ZEL [2018] NSWCATAP 252

The Tribunal's finding that the appellant was unable to make and implement appropriate services decisions was supported by probative evidence of his negative history of relationships with service providers, including matters confirmed by the appellant at the review hearing. Because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant met the criterion in s 17(1)(c) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), it was not open to appoint him as guardian and the appointment of the Public Guardian was not illogical, irrational or legally unreasonable. The appellant's remaining complaints did not establish a sound basis for leave to appeal, and no useful purpose would be served because the guardianship...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From Decisions of the Guardianship Division Concerning Renewal of a Guardianship Order and Adjournment of a Financial Management Order Review / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
No error of law was established, leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)' 'no Evidence Ground' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'leave to Appeal' 'appointment of Public Guardian' 'adjournment Decision']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship Law'] ['internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)' 'no Evidence Ground' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'leave to Appeal' 'appointment of Public Guardian' 'adjournment Decision']

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

Internal Appeal From Decisions of the Guardianship Division Concerning Renewal of a Guardianship Order and Adjournment of a Financial Management Order Review / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal's finding that the appellant was unable to make and implement appropriate decisions about services for the subject person was made in the absence of evidence." "Whether the Tribunal's decision to appoint the Public Guardian was legally unreasonable." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the guardianship decision.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory adjournment decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's finding that the appellant was unable to make and implement appropriate services decisions was supported by probative evidence of his negative history of relationships with service providers, including matters confirmed by the appellant at the review hearing. Because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant met the criterion in s 17(1)(c) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), it was not open to appoint him as guardian and the appointment of the Public Guardian was not illogical, irrational or legally unreasonable. The appellant's remaining complaints did not establish a sound basis for leave to appeal, and no useful purpose would be served because the guardianship...

Court Disposition

No error of law was established, leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['No error of law is established.' 'Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']