New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Re G [2000] NSWSC 871 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division Protective List FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 107/1990 HEARING DATE(S) : 25/08/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 25 August 2000 PARTIES : The names of the parties are suppressed in cases in the Protective List. JUDGMENT OF : Young J COUNSEL : The proceedings were heard in Chambers without representation. SOLICITORS : CATCHWORDS : MENTAL HEALTH [8]- Protection orders- Protected person moving interstate- Procedure. CASES CITED : EMG v Guardianship and Administration Board of Victoria [1999] NSWSC 501 DECISION : See para 5 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION YOUNG J FRIDAY 25 AUGUST 2000 107/1990 - RE G JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: G was badly injured in a motor car accident in NSW on 16 October 1984. On 8 June 1990 Powell J declared that G was a person incapable of managing her affairs and committed the management of her estate to the Protective Commissioner. 2 Some time ago G removed herself to Victoria. By administrative arrangement with the Protective Commissioner of NSW, G's Victorian affairs were managed by State Trustees Limited of Victoria which is the appropriate person to administer such affairs in Victoria on an informal basis. 3 On 8 February 2000, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made an order that State Trustees Limited be appointed as administrator of the estate of G pursuant to the Victorian Guardianship and Administration Act 1986. G has requested, and the Protective Commissioner is satisfied that it is a proper request, that her affairs now only be handled by State Trustees Limited. 4 The problem is how to bring about this state of affairs. It has been suggested that registration of the Victorian order in NSW might be effective, but for reasons which I gave in EMG v Guardianship and Administration Board of Victoria [1999] NSWSC 501 this is probably not effective to deal with any property in NSW. Sections 66 and 67 do not appear to be appropriate. Sections 34 and 35 of the Protected Estates Act 1983 cannot be utilised because G remains a protected person. 5 It seems to me that the appropriate way to deal with the problem with the least inconvenience is merely to revoke the appointment of the Protective Commissioner as Manager and appoint State Trustees Ltd as Manager without security. I so order. ************* Last Modified: 09/27/2000 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.