AB v Beer - [2017] WASC 199

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: AB -v- BEER [2017] WASC 199

CORAM: CORBOY J

HEARD: 2 NOVEMBER & 16 DECEMBER 2016 & 17 JULY 2017

DELIVERED : 21 JULY 2017

FILE NO/S: GDA 9 of 2016
GDA 10 of 2016

BETWEEN: AB
Applicant
AND
INGO BEER
First Respondent
INNER CITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
Second Respondent
MOBILE COMMUNITY OUTREACH TEAM
Third Respondent
MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL
Fourth Respondent
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Fifth Respondent

FILE NO/S :GDA 1 of 2017

BETWEEN :AB
Appellant
AND
INGO BEER
First Respondent
MOBILE COMMUNITY OUTREACH TEAM
Second Respondent
MARK McANDREW
Third Respondent
INNER CITY MENTAL HEALTH
Fourth Respondent
MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL
Fifth Respondent

FILE NO/S :CIV 3024 of 2016
AB
Applicant
EX PARTE

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :SENIOR MEMBER J MANSVELD

MEMBER MS M CONNOR
SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER DR F NG

File No :MHA 2 of 2016, MHA 6 of 2016

Catchwords:

Appeal from decision of State Administrative Tribunal - Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) - Review of decision to confirm community treatment order - Review of decision to confirm continuation of community treatment order - Whether appeal moot in circumstances where community treatment order has been revoked

Application to set aside subpoenas - Whether subpoenas have legitimate forensic purpose - Whether subpoenas oppressive - Whether subpoenas an abuse of process

Legislation:

Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), s 21, s 23, s 25, s 494, s 503, s 504
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27, s 105

Result:

Subpoenas served by appellant set aside
Application to join additional respondents refused
Appeals dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

GDA 9 of 2016

GDA 10 of 2016

Counsel:

Applicant:     In person
First Respondent           :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson
Second Respondent      :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson
Third Respondent          :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson
Fourth Respondent        :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson
Fifth Respondent           :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson

Solicitors:

Applicant:     In person
First Respondent           :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Second Respondent      :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Third Respondent          :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Fourth Respondent        :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Fifth Respondent           :     State Solicitor for Western Australia

GDA 1 of 2017

Counsel:

Appellant:     In person
First Respondent           :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson
Second Respondent      :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson
Third Respondent          :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson
Fourth Respondent        :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson
Fifth Respondent           :     Ms J C O'Meara & Mr B D Nelson

Solicitors:

Appellant:     In person
First Respondent           :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Second Respondent      :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Third Respondent          :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Fourth Respondent        :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Fifth Respondent…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AB v Beer

Details

AGLC: AB v Beer [2017] WASC 199
Case: [2017] WASC 199
Decision Date: 21 JULY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AB, the appellant, brought an appeal against a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT) concerning a community treatment order (CTO) under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA). The respondent, Beer, sought to confirm the CTO. The appeal was primarily focused on whether the appeal had become moot since the CTO had been revoked, and whether the subpoenas issued were oppressive, lacked a legitimate forensic purpose, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court was tasked with determining whether the appeal was moot given the revocation of the CTO. The court also considered whether the subpoenas issued by the respondent had a legitimate forensic purpose and whether they were oppressive and constituted an abuse of process. The central issue was whether the respondent's application to set aside the subpoenas should be allowed.

The court found that the appeal was not moot because the issues raised had broader implications beyond the specific case. It examined the nature and purpose of the subpoenas and concluded that they did not have a legitimate forensic purpose, as they were not directly related to the issues before the tribunal. The court further found that the subpoenas were oppressive and constituted an abuse of process. The court granted the application to set aside the subpoenas and quashed them. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs associated with the appeal.

Orders