S v S [2001] NSWSC 146

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : S v S [2001] NSWSC 146 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division Protective List FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 8/2001 HEARING DATE(S) : 09/03/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 9 March 2001

MAS (P) PARTIES : ACS (D1) Guardianship Tribunal of NSW (D2) Protective Commissioner of NSW (D3) JUDGMENT OF : Young J

J Higgins (P) COUNSEL : R Giurastante (Solicitor)(D2) R Darke (D3) G J Bartley (for Attorney General of NSW as amicus curiae) Mary Sullivan (P) SOLICITORS : Crown Solicitor's Office (D2) Connery & Partners (D3) CATCHWORDS : MENTAL HEALTH [9]- Guardianship Tribunal- Appeal- Question of fact- Whether leave to appeal should be given- Procedure- Leave refused. LEGISLATION CITED : Guardianship Act 1997, s 67 DOCS v S [2001] NSWSC 79 K v K [2000] NSWSC 1052 CASES CITED : King v Guardianship Tribunal (Cohen J 22.6.1998) Re Application 1/98 (Cohen J 27.3.1998) Re R [2000] NSWSC 886 DECISION : Leave to appeal refused.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION PROTECTIVE LIST

YOUNG J

FRIDAY 9 MARCH 2001

8/2001 - S v S

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Guardianship Tribunal of New South Wales which was handed down on 30 November 2000. 2 The decision concerns the care of the affairs of the first defendant. It is clear, and indeed was common ground before me, that the defendant is a person who is incapable of managing his own affairs, and that the only issue between the parties is whether the Protective Commissioner should be the manager of those affairs, or whether it should be the plaintiff. 3 The Tribunal considered the matter on 28 May 1999 and reviewed it, coming to the same decision on 30 November 2000, that decision being that the management of the first defendant's affairs should remain in control of the Protective Commissioner. 4 The plaintiff appeals by summons filed on 19 January 2001 and the grounds of appeal as outlined by her counsel are that: