ACC and MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL - [2024] WASAT 120

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2014 (WA);
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 2004 (WA)

CITATION:   ACC and MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL [2024] WASAT 120
MEMBER:   JUDGE H JACKSON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
HEARD:   15 OCTOBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   15 OCTOBER 2024
PUBLISHED           :   11 NOVEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   MHA 4 of 2024
BETWEEN:   ACC
Applicant

AND

MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Dismissal under s 47 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) - Misconceived proceedings - Decision subject to review no longer operative - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

Legislation:

Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), s 25, s 25(1)(d), s 25(2)(d), s 89, s 89(1), s 89(2), s 89(2)(b), s 90, s 90(1), s 386(2), s 390(1), s 494, s 494(1)

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 13(1), s 14, s 17(1), s 25(1), s 26, s 27(2), s 29(3), s 29(5), s 31, s 47, Pt 3, Div 3

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Ambrus and Churches of Christ Homes & Community Services Incorporated [2006] WASAT 141
Armstrong and Medical Board of Australia [2022] WASAT 76
Mathews v Victorian Institute of Teaching [2023] VCAT 1298

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

(These reasons were delivered orally and have been taken from the transcript of the hearing. They have been edited for the purposes of correcting grammatical errors or infelicity of expression and to add headings).

Introduction

By an application dated 7 August 2024, the applicant sought review of the Mental Health Tribunal's decision made on 22 July 2024 by which it upheld an inpatient treatment order (ITO) made in relation to the applicant. On 9 August 2024, a community treatment order (CTO) was made in relation to the applicant.
For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that upon the making of the CTO on 8 August 2024, the ITO which was the subject of the Mental Health Tribunal's decision ceased to have effect and, accordingly, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the ITO. The application should therefore be dismissed.

Factual background

On 29 June 2024, Dr NM made an ITO in relation to the applicant. Pursuant to the terms of that ITO, the applicant was held as an involuntary patient in a hospital. By the terms of the ITO, it was to expire on 20 July 2024. On 19 July 2024, Dr PM determined that the ITO should continue until 19 October 2024.
On the same day, Dr PM signed off on a report regarding the applicant which had been prepared for the Mental Health Tribunal. In it, he noted that there was a consensus among all treating healthcare professionals that the applicant was suffering from 'a severe mental illness that requires care in an inpatient facility'. On 22 July 2024, the Mental Health Tribunal reviewed the ITO.
In that regard, I note that the order of the Mental Health Tribunal the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ACC and MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] WASAT 120
Decision Date: 11 NOVEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the respondent, who had been dismissed from her position, appealing to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) under section 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). The SAT had dismissed her appeal as misconceived, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the decision she sought to challenge was no longer operative. The respondent subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, arguing that the SAT had erred in law by dismissing her appeal. The primary issue for the court was whether the SAT correctly determined that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the decision's non-operative status.

The court examined whether the SAT correctly exercised its discretion under section 47 of the Act to decline to hear the appeal. It assessed if the decision in question had indeed become non-operative and if the SAT's ruling on its jurisdiction was legally sound. The court held that the SAT correctly found that the decision was no longer operative, as the respondent had already been reinstated into her position prior to the appeal being heard. Given this, the court found that the SAT was correct in concluding that the decision was not a matter that it could review. Therefore, the SAT's dismissal of the appeal as misconceived was upheld.

In affirming the SAT's decision, the court underscored the importance of ensuring that administrative tribunals do not expend resources on reviewing decisions that are no longer capable of being enforced or that have been rendered moot by subsequent events. The court also emphasised the need for parties to be aware of the timeliness of their appeals and the implications of a decision becoming non-operative. The appeal was dismissed, and the SAT's decision was upheld as correct in law.

Orders