ZJQ v ZJR [2019] NSWCATAP 24

ZJQ v ZJR [2019] NSWCATAP 24

The Appeal Panel held that the Member correctly identified the need for a substitute decision maker for ZJR's accommodation, considered the relevant statutory principles and views, and was entitled on the evidence to be not satisfied that ZJQ could make accommodation decisions in accordance with s 4 of the Guardianship Act 1987. Because an order could not properly be made appointing ZJQ to that function, s 15(3) did not prevent appointment of the Public Guardian. No error of law or discretionary error was shown, and leave to appeal on other grounds was not warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Against a Guardianship Division Decision Renewing a Guardianship Order / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['renewal of Guardianship Order' 'appointment of Public Guardian' 'accommodation Function' 'enduring Guardian' 'question of Law on Internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal']
['guardianship Law' 'administrative Law'] ['renewal of Guardianship Order' 'appointment of Public Guardian' 'accommodation Function' 'enduring Guardian' 'question of Law on Internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal']

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 Against a Guardianship Division Decision Renewing a Guardianship Order / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in renewing the appointment of the Public Guardian with an accommodation function rather than appointing ZJQ.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed properly to apply ss 15(3) and 17(1)(c) of the Guardianship Act 1987.' "Whether findings about ZJQ's ability to make accommodation decisions were unsupported by evidence." 'Whether the 12 month renewal period involved error in the exercise of discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the Member correctly identified the need for a substitute decision maker for ZJR's accommodation, considered the relevant statutory principles and views, and was entitled on the evidence to be not satisfied that ZJQ could make accommodation decisions in accordance with s 4 of the Guardianship Act 1987. Because an order could not properly be made appointing ZJQ to that function, s 15(3) did not prevent appointment of the Public Guardian. No error of law or discretionary error was shown, and leave to appeal on other grounds was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']