BMA and BMB v Department of Family and Community Services (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAD 93

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: BMA and BMB v Department of Family and Community Services (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAD 93 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 08 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Higgins, Principal Member P Foreman, General Member Decision: The applicants' application for costs is refused. Catchwords: Administrative review – costs Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: BMA and BMB v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 20 Category: Costs Parties: BMA and BMB (Applicants) Department of Family and Community Services (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: A Melville (Applicants) J Smith, Care Legal (Respondent) Legal Aid (Guardian ad Litem) File Number(s): 1410497 Publication restriction: Section 65 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

REASONS FOR decision 1. The applicants, BMA and BMB (Mr B and Mrs B) are authorised carers under Chapter 8 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (the Care Act). In August 2014, they made an application to the Tribunal seeking review of a decision of the respondent to de-authorise them as carers and to remove their grandson (the child) from their day-to- day care. 2. The applicants application was heard over 3 days, on 7 January and 4 and 11 February 2015. 3. Our decision and reasons for decision were published on 19 February 2015: see BMA and BMB v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 20. In that decision we made orders setting aside the decision of the respondent to de-authorise the applicants as carers and affirmed the decision of the respondent to remove the child from the applicant's care. 4. At the conclusion of the hearing and in their written submissions the applicants made an application for costs. Accordingly, in publishing our decision, we also made orders for the parties to file and serve written submissions on the applicants' application for costs. Submissions were filed and served in accordance with the orders made.