Tanious v Hunt [2012] NSWCA 51

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Tanious v Hunt [2012] NSWCA 51 Hearing dates: 16 March 2012 Decision date: 16 March 2012 Before: Macfarlan JA Decision: The Notice of Motion filed by Mr Tanious on 27 February 2012 is dismissed with costs. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - no issue of principle Legislation Cited: Guardianship Act 1987 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mofeed Tanious (Applicant) Judy Hunt (First Respondent) Irini Moza (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant in person J McDonnell (Solicitor) (First Respondent) Solicitors: Applicant in person Crown Solicitor's Office (First Respondent) File Number(s): CA 2012/50000 Decision under appeal Citation: [2012] NSWADTAP (GD) 3 Date of Decision: 2012-02-02 00:00:00 Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President L Goodchild, Judicial Member M Bolt, Non-Judicial Member File Number(s): 119037

Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: This is the hearing of a Notice of Motion filed on 27 February 2012 by Mr Tanious. Mr Tanious appeared on his own behalf. He expounded at some length, both in writing and orally, the matters which he sought to advance in respect of the Notice of Motion. 2In summary, those matters concerned the psychiatric assessment of Mr Tanious' father, Mr Moza, who is the subject of a guardianship order under the Guardianship Act 1987. The Public Guardian, who was appointed on 12 January 2011 as Mr Moza's guardian by the NSW Guardianship Tribunal, has made certain decisions concerning that psychiatric assessment with which Mr Tanious takes issue. 3The appeal proceedings in which the Notice of Motion was filed were commenced by Notice of Appeal filed on 15 February 2012. The Notice of Appeal challenges a decision of the Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal ("ADT") of 2 February 2012. The Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from the decision of a single member of the ADT affirming the Public Guardian's decision as to who should have the day to day care of Mr Moza. The Public Guardian decided that Mr Tanious' sister, rather than Mr Tanious, should bear responsibility for that care, and Mr Tanious appealed unsuccessfully against that decision. He subsequently appealed to this Court, alleging that the Appeal Panel made an error of law. 4Mr Tanious' Notice of Motion filed on 27 February 2012 does not in my view have any rational relationship with the appeal proceedings. It seeks to impugn, not the 2 February 2012 decision of the Appeal Panel, but a subsequent decision made by the Public Guardian. There is no right of appeal conferred by statute which enables an appeal to be brought directly to this Court against decisions of the Public Guardian. If Mr Tanious has any ability to challenge those decisions then it is probable that such rights arise under s 80A of the Guardianship Act which permits the ADT to review decisions of the Public Guardian. 5There is therefore in my view no basis for the Notice of Motion that Mr Tanious has filed and it should be dismissed. 6I order that the Notice of Motion filed by Mr Tanious on 27 February 2012 be dismissed with costs.