CCT v Public Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 71

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CCT v Public Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 71 Hearing dates: 18 November 2015 Decision date: 18 April 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Hitter, Senior Member Decision: The decision of the Public Guardian is affirmed. Catchwords: Protective jurisdiction, welfare and interest paramount consideration Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Cases Cited: P v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWSC 579 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CCT (Applicant) Office of Public Guardian (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms Stevens (Respondent)

Solicitors: CCT (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 1510482 Publication restriction: Section 65 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies.

Reasons for decision

Introduction 1. This is an application to review a decision (the decision) made by the Respondent that denies CCT (the Applicant) access to a person subject to a Guardianship Order ("MH") in favour of the Respondent. MH is an 80 year old widowed woman of Polish descent reported to have dementia. At the request of the Applicant, the decision was subject to an internal review by the Respondent and the original decision was upheld. 2. On 8 May 2015, the Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Guardianship Division) appointed the Respondent as guardian of MH and appointed her foster daughter ("YW") as financial manager of MH's affairs. These Orders were confirmed on 18 September 2015 for a period of 3 years. The Respondent is appointed as guardian with authority to make decisions for MH in relation to her accommodation, health care, medical and dental treatment and access people have to her. 3. The Respondent is denying the Applicant access on the basis that it is not in the welfare and interests of MH for the Applicant to have access to her. 4. The Applicant does not agree with the reasons given by the Respondent to deny him access to MH. He says that denying him access to MH prevents him from seeing his "long term exceptional friend whom I have tried to help in her walking disability and quality of life in general". 5. The Applicant has asked the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) to review the decision on the grounds that the allegations made by the Respondent about him are incorrect. 6. The Tribunal finds that the decision of the Respondent to deny the Applicant access to MH is the correct and preferable decision for reasons set out below.