Sarah v The Public Guardian [2018] NSWSC 2005

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sarah v The Public Guardian [2018] NSWSC 2005 Hearing dates: 21 December 2018 Date of orders: 21 December 2018 Decision date: 21 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity - Protective List Before: Kunc J Decision: Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed with costs Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Protective jurisdiction — Procedure — Powers of court — Urgent application to revoke guardianship and financial management orders — No circumstances established to warrant revocation when review and appeal from orders to be heard in April and May 2019

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Hearings — Suppression and non-publication — Orders Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Guardianship Act 1978 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Sarah (Plaintiff) The Public Guardian (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: J Capsanis (Solicitor — Plaintiff) M Higgins (Defendant)

Solicitors: J Capsanis (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor (Defendant) File Number(s): 2016/229457 Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment (Revised)

Summary 1. These proceedings concern a 90-year-old woman to whom I shall refer, without disrespect, as "the mother". They are brought by her daughter who for the purposes of this judgment is referred to by the pseudonym "Sarah". 2. Guardianship orders have been made by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("NCAT") in respect of the mother. By a notice of motion filed shortly before the Court vacation, Sarah seeks a number of orders intended to undo the current guardianship regime in relation to the mother. Sarah asks the Court that she be substituted to have responsibility for the mother's affairs. 3. After an urgent hearing conducted subject to the constraints of the Duty List on the last Friday before Christmas, I have concluded that Sarah's notice of motion should be dismissed. I do so because she has failed to demonstrate that there are any circumstances warranting the urgent intervention of the Court in the current arrangements concerning the mother, especially when those arrangements will be the subject of a full judicial review at a hearing currently fixed for 14 and 15 May 2019 before a judge of this Court. 4. Mr J Capsanis, solicitor, appeared for Sarah. However, I should also record that, from time to time, Sarah asked to address the Court directly and was permitted to do so. The defendant (the "Public Guardian"), in whom certain guardianship functions have been vested, was represented by Mr M Higgins of Counsel.