NSW Tribunal Summons Refusal - Unreasonable Protection of the Public Trustee?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Ian Curtis

Well-Known Member
7 December 2016
46
2
124
See attached.

Seems to me to be implying that if TAG have not conducted their investigation into the lockout as promised they are allowed to stonewall rather than be made by NCAT to admit there was no investigation.

Also the implication that if the $100k estimate of expenses is completely made-up without any professional assessment, NCAT are allowing TAG to stonewall rather than admit there is no such assessment.
 

Attachments

  • Summons.JPG
    Summons.JPG
    264.1 KB · Views: 8

Docupedia

Well-Known Member
7 October 2020
377
54
794
What the tribunal is saying is that:
Item 1 doesn’t appear to them to be relevant to the dispute. There‘s no way to give any insight into that without a full understanding of the matter; and then you’d need a compelling argument to show that relevance to the tribunal.

Item 2 refers to the inability for a subpoena/summons to require that documents be created. If there was an itemised report in existence, that would be one thing, but you cannot require one to be created. That’s not how subpoenas work.
 

Ian Curtis

Well-Known Member
7 December 2016
46
2
124
Item 2: How does NCAT know it does not exist? Have they improperly been in contact with NSWTG about it? Surely issuing the summons could result in NSWTG stating that it does not exist? This would be satisfactory because it would be evidence of NSWTG not following due procedure. They are not good financial managers for anyone other than themselves. Demonstrating their incompetence (perhaps it is actually corruption) to my mind would be a good reason to assign an alternative FM If there are no red flags regarding the proposed FM.

Item 1: What I have a problem with is that the proposed Financial Manager's professionalism will be under the NCAT microscope but the performance of NSWTG is beyond questioning. Recently I heard a NSWTG lawyer say that their own (mis)performance is irrelevant to the assignment of a private FM. Mind you in a recent hearing of the person applying for the summons (not about FM though) the NSWTG lawyer attacked the credibility of the friend who made a financial plan and was simply explaining the figures. The applicant complained it was irrelevant interrogation but the Tribunal member disagreed and allowed the grilling. So the "professionals" can do no wrong in the eyes of the Tribunal it seems. Certainly I have never seen a Tribunal member chastise NSWTG for poor performance.
 

Docupedia

Well-Known Member
7 October 2020
377
54
794
Issue 1: Attacking a public servant in a tribunal or court will get you nowhere. I wouldn't even bother. Make your case. If impropriety comes to light, it will be dealt with in one way or another. But making that a point of your case will only come out negatively. Play the ball - not the opposition.

Issue 2: The summons request is phrased as if the itemised report is to be created: "I request an itemised report justifying....". As an example to contrast: "All internal reports and documents created between XX/XX/XX and XX/XX/XX setting out the cost of repairs the subject premises". The latter necessarily implies only those documents already in existence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian Curtis

Ian Curtis

Well-Known Member
7 December 2016
46
2
124
Issue 2: I see now how that could have been worded better, but TAG routinely make itemised reports as described (not on demand). To make that estimate without having actually performed the assessment and calculations could well be malpractice. NCAT protected TAG from owning up to neglecting due diligence. Again: rather than presuming that such a document does not exist and interpreting the summons as a request to create the document, they could have asked TAG to hand it over if it does exist.

Issue 1: That is probably true in most hearings however TAG and NCAT are increasingly nervous about the recent high profile public exposure of misconduct of their counterparts in Queensland, Tasmania, and Victoria. And this hearing is amongst activists who have between 7 and 15 supporters, including friends and family who are shocked by the misconduct and are spreading the word. NCAT have several times sabotaged video hearings, disconnecting everyone. One time they resumed by phone but failed (ie without even giving a reason or even officially rejecting us) to connect anyone except the applicant and the protected person. Nobody was being disruptive, they were simply witnesses to injustice.

Impropriety does *not* get dealt with. In my own hearing I had to shame the TAG representative and continuously badger the Member to get an undertaking from TAG to forward the relevant documents I gave them onto Centrelink (I am not authorised to give those documents myself to Centrelink). Forwading those documents would make the issue of the hearing go away but TAG were sabotaging the situation by simply refusing to perform their legal duty. In fact I think it was my pointing out that failure by NCAT to compel TAG may even make them complicit in this breaking of Centrelink rules. The member said she does not have the power to "compel" TAG to do anything (is that true?) but did get an "undertaking" from them.

I don't think you aware of how bad the situation is involving Tribunals, Public Trustees/Guardians, State Governments. Anne Connolly from Four Corners has been preparing an exposé this last year and the authorities know it.
 
Last edited: