ZLE v ZLF [2019] NSWCATAP 183

ZLE v ZLF [2019] NSWCATAP 183

Leave was refused and the appeal dismissed because the only discernible ground was a non-legal challenge requiring leave, and the Appeal Panel was not satisfied that the Tribunal's finding that ZLE was not able to perform the role of guardian was based on the alleged misunderstood evidence or was a factual error unreasonably arrived at and clearly mistaken. The Tribunal's reasons showed that the finding was based on evidence concerning ZLE's ability to make decisions contrary to ZLF's wishes, his insight into her illness, his understanding of the guardian's role, and his ability to objectively consider expert advice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Guardianship Division Decision Continuing a Guardianship Order and Appointing the Public Guardian as Sole Guardian / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'guardianship Order Review' 'suitability for Appointment as Guardian' 'factual Error']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship Law'] ['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'guardianship Order Review' 'suitability for Appointment as Guardian' 'factual Error']

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 a Guardianship Division Decision Continuing a Guardianship Order and Appointing the Public Guardian as Sole Guardian / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal made a factual error that was unreasonably arrived at and clearly mistaken in concluding that ZLE was not able to perform the role of guardian for ZLF.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted in respect of the challenge to the appointment of the Public Guardian as sole guardian.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused and the appeal dismissed because the only discernible ground was a non-legal challenge requiring leave, and the Appeal Panel was not satisfied that the Tribunal's finding that ZLE was not able to perform the role of guardian was based on the alleged misunderstood evidence or was a factual error unreasonably arrived at and clearly mistaken. The Tribunal's reasons showed that the finding was based on evidence concerning ZLE's ability to make decisions contrary to ZLF's wishes, his insight into her illness, his understanding of the guardian's role, and his ability to objectively consider expert advice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal is refused.']