NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CXN v Child and Adolescent Specialist Programs and Accommodation [2017] NSWCATAD 152 Hearing dates: 30 March 2017 Date of orders: 16 May 2017 Decision date: 16 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Anderson, Senior Member Decision: (1) That pursuant to section 52 (2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) within 7 days of the date of these orders, reasons be provided by CASPA Services Ltd which comply with section 49 (3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act to the extent required and as identified in this decision, in relation to the decision to remove from the care of the applicants the care responsibility for the 2 children who were previously in their care, and the reasons for revoking the authorisation of the applicants as authorised carers.
(2) That within 7 days of the date of these orders CASPA Services Ltd cause to be paid to the solicitors for the applicants the sum of $1320 which is the amount of the applicant's costs assessed by the Tribunal and ordered to be paid pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- whether reasons provided by CASPA Services Ltd comply with section 49(3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) – whether the applicants are entitled to an order under section 52(2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) – consideration of the content of reasons required to be provided upon request for written reasons – order made for adequate reasons to be provided COSTS – order for quantified costs due to special circumstances pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2012 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: AQY & AQZ v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1028 Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284; (2006) 67 NSWLR 372 Hoque v ARZ Building & Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 71 Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32 Osmond v Public Service Board [1984] 3 NSWLR 447 PR v Department of Community Services [2009] NSWADT 277 Re Cameron [2012] NSWSC 1453 Re Kerry (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 127 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme [2003] HCA 56; (2003) 216 CLR 212 Roberts v Balancio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436 Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181 YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CXN & CXO (Applicants) Secretary Department of Family and Community Services (Respondent) Representation: Advocates: P Decle (Applicants) S Pinchin (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