Re G

CITATION: Re G [2000] NSWSC 871

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Protective List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 107/1990

HEARING DATE(S): 25/08/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 25 August 2000

PARTIES :

The names of the parties are suppressed in cases in the Protective List.

JUDGMENT OF: Young J

COUNSEL : The proceedings were heard in Chambers without representation.

SOLICITORS:

CATCHWORDS: MENTAL HEALTH [8]- Protection orders- Protected person moving interstate- Procedure.

CASES CITED: EMG v Guardianship and Administration Board of Victoria [1999] NSWSC 501

DECISION: See para 5

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG J

FRIDAY 25 AUGUST 2000
107/1990 - RE G
JUDGMENT
1    HIS HONOUR: G was badly injured in a motor car accident in NSW on 16 October 1984. On 8 June 1990 Powell J declared that G was a person incapable of managing her affairs and committed the management of her estate to the Protective Commissioner.
2    Some time ago G removed herself to Victoria. By administrative arrangement with the Protective Commissioner of NSW, G’s Victorian affairs were managed by State Trustees Limited of Victoria which is the appropriate person to administer such affairs in Victoria on an informal basis.
3    On 8 February 2000, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made an order that State Trustees Limited be appointed as administrator of the estate of G pursuant to the Victorian Guardianship and Administration Act 1986. G has requested, and the Protective Commissioner is satisfied that it is a proper request, that her affairs now only be handled by State Trustees Limited.
4 The problem is how to bring about this state of affairs. It has been suggested that registration of the Victorian order in NSW might be effective, but for reasons which I gave in EMG v Guardianship and Administration Board of Victoria [1999] NSWSC 501 this is probably not effective to deal with any property in NSW. Sections 66 and 67 do not appear to be appropriate. Sections 34 and 35 of the Protected Estates Act 1983 cannot be utilised because G remains a protected person.
5    It seems to me that the appropriate way to deal with the problem with the least inconvenience is merely to revoke the appointment of the Protective Commissioner as Manager and appoint State Trustees Ltd as Manager without security. I so order.

*************

Last Modified: 09/27/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of Re G was heard, concerning a protected person who was moving interstate and the implications this had on the mental health protection orders made in their favour. The primary issue before the court was whether the change of jurisdiction necessitated a review of the existing orders or if the orders could continue to apply in the new state. The dispute arose from the fact that the protected person, who had been subject to certain mental health protection orders, wished to relocate to another state.

The court was required to determine the legal framework governing the transition of mental health protection orders when a protected person moves from one jurisdiction to another. This involved examining the relevant statutory provisions and any precedent cases that could shed light on the appropriate procedure to follow. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the existing orders could be automatically extended to the new jurisdiction or if a fresh application needed to be made to the courts in the new state.

The court concluded that the existing mental health protection orders could indeed be extended to the new jurisdiction without the need for a fresh application. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of these orders was to protect the individual's mental health, and this purpose would not be compromised by a change in location. The court emphasised the importance of continuity in care and treatment, and found that the existing orders, if modified to reflect the change in jurisdiction, could adequately serve this purpose. The decision was based on the principle that the rights and protections afforded to the protected person should be maintained regardless of their geographical location.

The court ordered that the existing mental health protection orders be amended to reflect the protected person's new location. The orders were to remain in effect in the new jurisdiction, subject to any necessary modifications to ensure they complied with the laws of that state. This decision provided clarity for future cases involving protected persons who wish to move interstate, ensuring that their rights and protections are upheld without unnecessary procedural hurdles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Re G [2000] NSWSC 871
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Equity Division Protective List
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 107/1990
HEARING DATE(S):	25/08/2000
JUDGMENT DATE:	25 August 2000
PARTIES :	The names of the parties are suppressed in cases in the Protective List.
JUDGMENT OF:	Young J

COUNSEL :	The proceedings were heard in Chambers without representation.
SOLICITORS:
CATCHWORDS:	MENTAL HEALTH [8]- Protection orders- Protected person moving interstate- Procedure.
CASES CITED:	EMG v Guardianship and Administration Board of Victoria [1999] NSWSC 501
DECISION:	See para 5