DYH v Public Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 252

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: DYH v Public Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 252 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 19 October 2020 Decision date: 19 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member Decision: The proceedings are dismissed pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- Reviewability - decision of Public Guardian concerning access CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings – misconceived and lacking in substance Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Guardianship Act 1987 Cases Cited: Alchin v Rail Corporation NSW [2012] NSWADT 142 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: DYH (First Applicant) EIV (Second Applicant) Public Guardian (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicants (Self Represented) Respondent (Self Represented) File Number(s): 2020/00165524 Publication restriction: The disclosure of the names of the applicants and any family member referred to in these reasons is prohibited pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Reasons for decision 1. This is an application for summary dismissal by the respondent. The respondent seeks an order to dismiss, under s 55 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the application dated 2 June 2020 by the applicants which sought review of the respondent's decision to decline a proposal for DYH and EIV to visit DYH'S mother on Mothers Day (10 May) 2020. 2. When directed to file submissions and evidence in relation to the application to dismiss, the parties were asked to include any submission on whether the application required a hearing or was suitable for determination without a hearing. Section 50 of the CAT Act provides that the Tribunal may make an order dispensing with a hearing if it is satisfied that the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. It must first provide the parties with an opportunity to make submissions on this point and consider those submissions. 3. I considered the submissions filed by the parties, neither of whom objected to the matter being determined without a hearing and I was satisfied that the issues could be adequately determined on the papers.