ZPP v ZPO [2020] NSWCATAP 288

ZPP v ZPO [2020] NSWCATAP 288

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal did not deny the appellant procedural fairness: it considered the adjournment request in detail, made allowances for the appellant's circumstances, permitted assistance by a McKenzie friend by telephone with opportunities for private discussion, and no practical injustice was shown. The alleged fraud ground and documents ground did not raise a question of principle or policy or disclose manifest error in the decision or decision-making process, so leave to appeal on those grounds was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Guardianship Division Decision Reviewing an Enduring Power of Attorney / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused on the allegation of a fraudulent document ground and the documents ground.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'mc Kenzie Friend' 'telephone Hearing' 'leave to Appeal' 'enduring Power of Attorney']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship and Administration' 'powers of Attorney'] ['procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'mc Kenzie Friend' 'telephone Hearing' 'leave to Appeal' 'enduring Power of Attorney']

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 Reviewing an Enduring Power of Attorney / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal denied the appellant procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment.' "Whether the Tribunal denied the appellant procedural fairness by limiting participation of the appellant's McKenzie friend in a telephone hearing." 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal on the ground that the Tribunal erred in not reviewing the making of the 2010 enduring power of attorney because it was alleged to be fraudulent.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal on the ground that the Tribunal did not have all relevant documents before it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal did not deny the appellant procedural fairness: it considered the adjournment request in detail, made allowances for the appellant's circumstances, permitted assistance by a McKenzie friend by telephone with opportunities for private discussion, and no practical injustice was shown. The alleged fraud ground and documents ground did not raise a question of principle or policy or disclose manifest error in the decision or decision-making process, so leave to appeal on those grounds was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused on the allegation of a fraudulent document ground and the documents ground.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']