KLS [2017] NSWCATGD 42

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: KLS [2017] NSWCATGD 42 Hearing dates: 4 December 2017 Date of orders: 04 December 2017 Decision date: 04 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Guardianship Division Before: A Britton, Principal Member W E Blaxland, Senior Member (Professional) J Cootes, General Member (Community) Decision: The application is dismissed because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Catchwords: GUARDIANSHIP – application for guardianship – consideration of section 3(2) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) – whether subject person is a "person in need of a guardian" – lack of evidence as to need for order Legislation Cited: Guardianship Act (1987) NSW ss 3(2), 4(d) and 14)(a)(i), 14(1), 25G(a) Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 P v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWSC 579 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ms KLS (the person) Mrs LZS (applicant) The NSW Public Guardian Representation: Nil File Number(s): 2017/00197365 Publication restriction: Decisions of the Guardianship Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal have been anonymised to remove any information that may identify any person involved in the Tribunal's proceedings (s 65, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)).

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. Sixty-four year old Ms KLS lives independently in an apartment in Southern Sydney. Ms KLS and her sister, Mrs LZS, are joint owners of the apartment, which was given to them by their mother. 2. Ms KLS is currently the subject of a financial management order made by a differently constituted Tribunal in June 2017. 3. In July 2017, Mrs LZS made an application to NCAT seeking a guardianship order in respect of Ms KLS (the Application). Mrs LZS wrote in the Application that she intends to sell the apartment. In her opinion Ms KLS lacks the ability to look for alternative accommodation and needs a "mental health assessment" and treatment. 4. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the available material does not permit the exercise of the power to make a guardianship order.