© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2018] ACAT 18
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2018-02-28
Geoff Lindsay J
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] As set out in reasons for decision dated 6 September 2017
[2] Section 79(3) ACAT Act - A party to the original application may, by application, appeal the decision to the tribunal on a question of fact or law
[5] Hussain v Farhmand [2017] ACAT 107 at [5]
[6] Section 82(b) of the ACAT Act - "An appeal tribunal may, as the tribunal considers appropriate, deal with an appeal - (b) as a review of all or part of the original decision on the application by the tribunal_._"
[10] "4. The appellant is to file an interim or other orders application seeking leave to introduce fresh or further evidence on appeal, attaching a copy of such fresh or further evidence, by 20 November 2017."
[11] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 27, lines 27-30
[12] Transcript of proceedings 16 October 2017 page 9, lines 16 - 17
[13] Transcript of proceedings 16 October 2017 page 11, lines 17 - 26
[14] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 p.9, lines 33-36
[15] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 10 lines, 24-28
[16] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 10, lines 19-21
[17] Transcript of proceedings 18 April 2017 page 13, lines 19-21 and referred to by AC in appendix 1A, page 7 of attachment (1) to application for interim orders
[18] Appendix 1D, page 7 of Attachment (1) to Application for interim Orders.
[19] Murray v Figge (1974) 4 ALR 612, 613 - There is no doubt that a court has power to re-open a case after a hearing has concluded but before judgment is delivered so that new or additional evidence can be admitted
[21] Excel Intelligent Pty Ltd v Thomson [2018] ACAT 4
[23] section 79(3) "A party to the original application may, by application, appeal the decision to the tribunal on a question of fact or law."
[24] The appellant identified four statutory requirements, (1) sections 9 and 10 of the GMP Act; (2) section 5A of the GMP Act; sections 11, 12 and 30 of the HR Act and (4) section 4 of the GMP Act
[25] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 17, lines 12-14
[26] This statement is made in the reasons for decision in [65](b) under 'Consideration of statutory criteria for guardian and manager'. Part of this statement is referred to in [79]
[27] (1981) 37 ALR 620, 621
[29] In section 3L of appendix (B) of the appellant's submissions to the Tribunal dated 19 June 2017
[30] Transcript 7 August 2017 page 11 lines 24-28
[31] Transcript of proceedings 7 August 2017 page 12, lines 9 - 11, lines 17-21
[32] Transcript of proceedings 7 August 2017 page 12, lines 30-40
[33] [77] - "The review Tribunal is not aware of the views and wishes of AB in relation to the appointment of a guardian and manager, or who should be appointed as a guardian or manager (section 10(4)(a)). As noted earlier, he has had little or no verbal communication with others in recent months. The Tribunal was advised that AB was told about the review hearing. However, he did not attend. At the review hearing AC and his wife, a treating doctor and the PTG's officer were unable to say what his views and wishes are."
[34] Transcript of proceedings15 January 2018 page 48 lines 33-34
[35] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 49, line 28
[36] In [81] of the reasons for decision
[37] In [82] of the reasons for decision
[39] Page 23 appellant's submissions filed in December 2017
[40] Appellants submissions filed December 2017 pages 8-9
[41] Appellants submissions filed December 2017 page 9
[42] [88], [89], [90], [91], [93], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [101], [102], [103], [106], [109], [110], [111] and [113]
[43] Pages 24 - 36 and 37-39 appellants submissions filed in December 2017
[44] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 56, lines 11-18
[45] Page 26 appellant's submissions filed in December 2017
[46] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018, page 56 lines 15, 17-18
[47] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 61, line 8
[48] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 62, lines 32-34
[49] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 63 lines17-19
[50] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 53, lines 42-44; page 54, lines 1-6
[51] Appellant's submissions filed December 2017 page 41
[52] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 81, lines 33-34
[53] Dated 8 December 2017, presented to NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) Guardianship Division
[54] Appellant's document D1 at page 45
[55] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 84, line 31
[56] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 84, lines 322-34
[57] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 84, lines 36-39
[58] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 84 lines 42-44
[59] Transcript of proceedings 15 January 2018 page 85 lines 8-10
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 60, 79, 80, 82
Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991 ss 4, 5A, 6, 9, 10, 11, 19
Human Rights Act 2004 ss 11, 12, 30
Subordinate
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedural Rules (2009) (No. 2) r 21
Cases cited: B&T Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations
Registrar and the Owners - Units Plan 3324 [2013] ACTSC 219
Excel Intelligent Pty Ltd v Thomson [2018] ACAT 4
Felle & Commissioner for Social Housing in the ACT [2012] ACAT 82
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Giusida Pty Limited v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2016] ACTSC 275
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hussain v Farhmand [2017] ACAT 107
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390
Murray v Figge (1974) 4 ALR 612
Steed v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 37 ALR 620
Paper cited: "Roles in Protective Management of Person and Property", Justice Geoff Lindsay, Probate and Protective List Judge, Equity Division of the NSW Supreme Court, 8 December 2017
60. As the seminal judgment of the Court of Appeal in Holt v Protective Commissioner (1993) 31 NSWLR 227 illustrates (and as has been explored in a succession of recent judgments, including M v M [2013] NSWSC 1495 and Re LSC and GC [2016] 1896) the selection of a person suitable for appointment as a financial manager or guardian needs to be sensitive to the particular, subjective circumstances of the person in need of protection.
(2003) 214 CLR 118
(1936) 55 CLR 499
(2010) 241 CLR 390
(1974) 4 ALR 612
(1981) 37 ALR 620
(1993) 31 NSWLR 227