CNW v Public Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 15

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CNW v Public Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 15 Hearing dates: 25 July 2016 Date of orders: 11 January 2017 Decision date: 11 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J Moir, Senior Member Decision: (1) CD and DE were not joined as parties to the application for review.

(2) The decision under review is varied to the extent that there is no prohibition against CNW inviting a non family member to any access visits with AB. Catchwords: Administrative Review – NSW Public Guardian – correct and preferable decision – best interests of the person under guardianship Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997(NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) Guardianship Regulation 2010 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: CNW (Applicant) Public Guardian (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Higgins (Respondent)

Solicitors: Emil Ford Lawyers (Applicant) Crown Solicitors Officer (Respondent) File Number(s): 1610290 Publication restriction: S64 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – prohibiting the publication of the names of the witnesses, applicants and the person under guardianship.

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The person under guardianship, who I will refer to in these reasons as AB, is a 51 year old woman with Down's Syndrome and Alzheimer's dementia, who has lived for the last few years at an aged care facility (the ACF) in a regional area in eastern NSW. Before moving to the ACF she had lived with her sister (BC) for around 13 years, since their parents died. She has another sister, who is the applicant in these proceedings, who will be referred to as CNW, and two brothers (CD and DE). The Public Guardian has been appointed and reappointed on review as AB's guardian in respect of the access she should have with other people, and specifically, with CNW. 2. The issue in these proceedings is whether the Public Guardian's decision of 28 January 2016 (reviewed and affirmed internally on 29 April 2016) regarding the conditions under which AB is to have access with CNW, is the correct and preferable decision. CNW contends that the decision regarding the terms and conditions imposed by the Public Guardian was made based on incorrect information, that she was not afforded procedural fairness in the making of the decision and that there is no proper rationale for a number of the elements of the decision.