This court case is about a protected person who has an estate managed in New South Wales (NSW), but the person and their family have since moved to Tasmania. The sister of the protected person, who is now an administrator appointed in Tasmania, applied to the NSW Supreme Court to have the NSW management orders discharged and for her to take over the management of the NSW estate. The court agreed that it was in the best interests of the protected person to transfer the management of his estate to Tasmania, where his family lives. The court made orders for the NSW estate to be transferred to Tasmania, ensuring that the Tasmanian protective regime would be properly engaged to safeguard the protected person’s interests.
Key details of the case
- Case Name: SMM v GE
- Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Case Number: 2025/00063134
- Date of Decision: 10 October 2025
- Protected Person: GE (the first defendant), born August 1959 (aged 66 in 2025). Diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, which was worsened by injuries from a car accident in 1988 and a fall in 2015. Lacks capacity to manage financial affairs.
- Applicant: SMM (the plaintiff), sister of the protected person. Appointed as administrator of the protected person’s estate by the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) on 1 November 2023.
- First Defendant: GE (the protected person).
- Second Defendant: JE (father of SMM and GE). Previously managed the protected person’s estate in NSW. Filed a submitting appearance.
- Third Defendant: NSW Trustee. Responsible for supervising financial managers in NSW and a trustee of funds on behalf of the protected person.
- Background: The protected person and his elderly parents (aged 87 and 93) moved from NSW to Tasmania in 2017 to live with SMM and her family. The protected person’s estate in NSW is valued at approximately $1.6 million, comprising investments from personal injury compensation.
- Application: SMM applied to discharge the NSW management orders and have the NSW estate transferred to Tasmania for administration under the Tasmanian protective regime.
- Key Legislation Cited: NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009, Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas), Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
Simple summary of the judgement
The case involved GE, a man who is unable to manage his own affairs due to intellectual disability and other health issues. He has a significant estate in New South Wales (NSW), valued at about $1.6 million, which primarily comes from personal injury compensation. Initially, GE’s estate was managed under NSW law, with his father acting as the manager and the NSW Trustee holding some of the funds.
However, GE and his entire family, including his parents and his sister SMM, had moved to Tasmania. SMM had been appointed by the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) as the administrator of GE’s estate in Tasmania. Because the whole family was now living in Tasmania, they wanted GE’s estate management to be handled under the Tasmanian system, which they felt would be more convenient and appropriate given their permanent residence there.
SMM applied to the NSW Supreme Court to have the NSW management orders cancelled and for her to take over the management of GE’s NSW estate. The NSW Trustee, responsible for overseeing such matters in NSW, had also recommended that consideration be given to consolidating the management of GE’s affairs under one jurisdiction.
The judge, Lindsay J, considered the evidence and the relevant laws. The core principle was that any decision must be in the “best interests” and for the “benefit” of the protected person. The court noted that while the Tasmanian system might have different procedures to the NSW system, it was important that the Tasmanian regime was properly engaged and effective in protecting GE’s interests.
The court reviewed the arrangements in Tasmania, including SMM’s role as administrator, her reporting to TASCAT, and how GE’s bank accounts were managed. The court was satisfied that the Tasmanian protective regime had been properly engaged and that SMM was fulfilling her duties as administrator under TASCAT’s supervision.
Ultimately, the judge found that it was in GE’s best interests for his NSW estate to be managed under the Tasmanian system. The court therefore made orders for the transfer of GE’s NSW estate to Tasmania, under the control of SMM as TASCAT’s appointed administrator. The court also ordered that the father provide an up-to-date accounting of his previous management, and that the NSW Trustee facilitate the transfer of funds. The existing NSW management orders would then be revoked, with SMM undertaking to manage the estate in Tasmania according to Tasmanian law and any further directions from the court.
Q&A
- Q: Is it legal for a protected person’s estate, managed in one Australian state, to be transferred to another state if the person and their family move?
- A: Yes, it is legal. As demonstrated in this case, the NSW Supreme Court can order the transfer of a protected person’s estate to another Australian state if it is in the best interests of the protected person and if a suitable protective regime is in place in the new jurisdiction. This often involves cooperation between the courts and trustee bodies of both states.
- Q: What factors does a court consider when deciding to transfer a protected person’s estate to another state?
- A: The primary factor is the “best interests” and “benefit” of the protected person. Courts will consider where the protected person and their primary carers (family) now reside, the effectiveness of the protective regime in the new jurisdiction, and ensuring continuity of care and management.
- Q: Who decides if the transfer of an estate is in the protected person’s best interests?
- A: The Supreme Court, in this instance the NSW Supreme Court, makes the final decision after considering all the evidence, including applications from family members, reports from relevant authorities (like the NSW Trustee), and the established legal principles.
- Q: Does the protected person have a say in the transfer of their estate?
- A: While a protected person lacks the capacity to manage their own affairs, the court will take into consideration their views, wishes, and preferences as far as is practicable. The court’s overarching duty is to act in their best interests, which may include facilitating their integration into their family’s life and location.
- Q: What happens to the existing management orders in NSW after the estate is transferred?
- A: The court typically orders the revocation of the existing NSW management orders once the transfer is complete and the new jurisdiction’s regime is properly engaged. The new administrator then operates under the laws of that jurisdiction.
- Q: What role does the NSW Trustee play in such a transfer?
- A: The NSW Trustee plays a crucial role in reporting to the court, providing information about the process, and facilitating the transfer of assets from NSW to the new jurisdiction. They ensure that the transfer is done in accordance with legal requirements.
- Q: What is TASCAT?
- A: TASCAT stands for the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. It is the body in Tasmania responsible for making orders related to guardianship and administration for individuals who cannot manage their own affairs, similar to roles played by NSW Trustee and Guardian or Guardianship Divisions in other states.
- Q: Does the protected person need to have a diagnosed condition for their estate to be managed interstate?
- A: Yes. The person must be legally recognised as being incapable of managing their own affairs, often referred to as a “protected person” or similar terminology, and have formal orders in place in one jurisdiction.
- Q: Can an individual bypass court orders if they move interstate with a protected person?
- A: No, individuals cannot unilaterally bypass court orders. Formal legal processes through the relevant Supreme Courts are required to discharge or vary existing orders and establish new management arrangements in a different jurisdiction.
- Q: What if the new jurisdiction’s laws are different from NSW?
- A: The court will assess if the new jurisdiction’s protective regime is effective and no less protective than the NSW system. The focus is on ensuring the protected person’s interests are safeguarded, rather than requiring an identical legal framework.
- Q: What is a “submitting appearance”?
- A: A “submitting appearance” means that a party to the proceedings does not contest the application and agrees to abide by the court’s decision. In this case, the protected person’s father, who was the previous manager of the estate, filed a submitting appearance, indicating his agreement with the transfer.
- Q: How is the “best interests” of the protected person determined?
- A: The court considers various factors, including the protected person’s welfare, their connection to family, the stability of their living environment, and the overall benefit to their quality of life. This often involves looking at where their support network is located.
- Q: What are the potential risks if an estate is not managed properly after relocation?
- A: Risks include financial exploitation, mismanagement of funds, lack of appropriate care, and disruption to the protected person’s well-being and stability. This is why courts ensure a robust protective regime is in place before approving any transfer.
- Q: Can the NSW Trustee refuse to transfer the estate?
- A: The NSW Trustee, while having a supervisory role, acts under the direction of the Court. If the Court orders a transfer based on the protected person’s best interests, the NSW Trustee will facilitate this process.
- Q: Is it possible for management to remain in NSW even if the family moves?
- A: It is possible, but often not ideal. If it can be demonstrated that ongoing management in NSW is still in the protected person’s best interest (e.g., due to complex investments or specific care arrangements not available elsewhere), the court might allow it. However, the move of the entire family and support network to another state strongly favours a transfer of jurisdiction.
For more simplified case summaries of NSW Supreme Court cases, you can visit this link.
The original judgment can be found here: SMM v GE NSWSC 1184.