ZKB v ZKC [2019] NSWCATAP 60

ZKB v ZKC [2019] NSWCATAP 60

The Appeal Panel found that the Tribunal made sufficient findings, based on medical evidence, that ZKC was a person in need of a guardian as defined by statute, and that any failures to use statutory language did not amount to an error of law. The Tribunal also took reasonable steps to afford both ZKC and ZKB procedural fairness, including providing opportunities to participate and to respond to evidence. The non-receipt of certain documents by ZKB did not amount to a breach of procedural fairness as she was aware of the substance of relevant allegations and was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Parties
Appellant: ZKB; 1st Respondent: ZKC; 2nd Respondent: ZKD; 3rd Respondent: ZKE; 4th Respondent: Public Guardian; 5th Respondent: NSW Trustee and Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Determination by Appeal Panel
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal on grounds other than questions of law refused.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Findings of Fact, Appeal on Question of Law, Guardianship Orders
Guardianship Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Findings of Fact Appeal on Question of Law Guardianship Orders

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZKB

Appellant

ZKC

1st Respondent

ZKD

2nd Respondent

ZKE

3rd Respondent

Public Guardian

4th Respondent

NSW Trustee and Guardian

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Determination by Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to make relevant findings of fact about ZKC being a person in need of a guardian
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal breached procedural fairness in respect to ZKC and ZKB's opportunity to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found that the Tribunal made sufficient findings, based on medical evidence, that ZKC was a person in need of a guardian as defined by statute, and that any failures to use statutory language did not amount to an error of law. The Tribunal also took reasonable steps to afford both ZKC and ZKB procedural fairness, including providing opportunities to participate and to respond to evidence. The non-receipt of certain documents by ZKB did not amount to a breach of procedural fairness as she was aware of the substance of relevant allegations and was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal on grounds other than questions of law refused.

Orders

  • Leave is refused for the appellant to appeal on grounds other than questions of law.
  • The appeal is dismissed.