JL v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

[2015] NSWCA 88

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Certiorari
4. › Error of law on the face of the record
5. › Jurisdictional error
6. › Appeal from Children's Court to District Court
7. › Whether District Court correctly applied s 90 of Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
8. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Self-represented litigant
4. › Refusal of adjournment to call witness
5. › Whether denial of procedural fairness established
6. › Whether failure to adjourn constituted jurisdictional error
1. Administrative Law
2. › Apprehended bias
3. › Whether adverse findings of fact give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias
4. › Whether rejection of applicant's case constitutes bias
1. Child Welfare
2. › Care and protection of children
3. › Care orders
4. › Rescission and variation
5. › Leave to apply under s 90
6. › Significant change in relevant circumstances
7. › Whether applicant established arguable case
8. › Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), ss 90, 91

Quick Take

The matters in s 90(6) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) are not mandatory considerations at the leave stage under s 90(2A); the extent to which demonstration of an arguable case is a prerequisite to a grant of leave depends upon the circumstances. The CROC is not a mandatory consideration in the exercise of the s 90 discretion, and failure to consider it does not constitute jurisdictional error where it was not raised before the primary judge. A self-represented litigant's failure to comply with case management directions for the preparation of evidence does not give rise to a denial of procedural fairness when the court declines to adjourn.