A subsequent care planning decision under the CCS Act does not deprive the SAT of jurisdiction to review an earlier CEO decision under s 93(6), but the Tribunal may properly dismiss the application as lacking in substance under s 47(1)(a) of the SAT Act where the earlier decision has been superseded by a substantially different decision. The statutory process for internal review should not be circumvented by Tribunal review of superseded decisions. The best interests of the child may be a relevant consideration in determining whether to grant leave to appeal from SAT decisions concerning care planning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.