NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CHJ v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 113 Hearing dates: 1 September 2016, 25 November 2016 Date of orders: 10 April 2017 Decision date: 10 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J McAteer (Senior Member) P Foreman (General Member) Decision: (1) The decision of the respondent, dated 6 November 2015, to refuse to grant the applicant a Working With Children Check clearance is affirmed. (2) The application is dismissed Catchwords: CHILD Protection – Working with children – Findings in respect of criminal allegations – Evidence – Weight of evidence – Fairness to party – Proposed adverse finding -No presumption of risk s27 – Credibility of applicant. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998(Repealed) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Interpretation Act 1987 Cases Cited: ADV v Commission for Children and Young People [2012] NSWADT 8 AYU v NSW Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69 BFC v The Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 90 BFX v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115 BJB v Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 111 BJB v The Children's Guardian (No. 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2017] NSWCA 41 Commission for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111 Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949; 56 NSWLR 476 King v Collins [2007] NSWCA 122 L v The Commissioner for Children and Young People and anor [2008] NSWIRComm 195 Office of the Children's Guardian v CFW [2016] NSWSC 1406 R v Commission for Children and Young People [2002] NSWIRComm 101 Re Control Investments Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CHJ – Applicant Office of the Children's Guardian - Respondent Representation: Counsel: B Regener – Applicant V Hartstein - Respondent
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate