ZTL v ZTM [2021] NSWCATAP 200

ZTL v ZTM [2021] NSWCATAP 200

The Appeal Panel found there was no denial of procedural fairness as the substance of the adverse material was communicated to the appellant, who was given and exercised the opportunity to respond both in writing and orally. The Tribunal did not rely on the W letter in making its decision, and in relation to other documents, the appellant was on notice of their consideration and did not object to their inclusion. No practical injustice arose to the appellant.

Parties
Appellant: ZTL; First Respondent: ZTM; Second Respondent: ZTN; Third Respondent: Public Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Appointment of Guardian, Evidence Admissibility
Guardianship Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Appointment of Guardian Evidence Admissibility

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZTL

Appellant

ZTM

First Respondent

ZTN

Second Respondent

Public Guardian

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness by not being given the opportunity to respond to evidence (the W letter) before the Tribunal at first instance;
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in law by considering certain documents the appellant believed had been withdrawn, thereby denying procedural fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found there was no denial of procedural fairness as the substance of the adverse material was communicated to the appellant, who was given and exercised the opportunity to respond both in writing and orally. The Tribunal did not rely on the W letter in making its decision, and in relation to other documents, the appellant was on notice of their consideration and did not object to their inclusion. No practical injustice arose to the appellant.

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.