Ahmet v Jardine

In the matter of Ahmet v Jardine, the applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision appointing a litigation guardian for the respondent, who was alleged to be mentally incapacitated. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant would suffer substantial injustice if leave to appeal was denied and whether there was sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the primary decision to warrant leave. Additionally, the court had to determine whether fresh evidence could be admitted on appeal from an interlocutory application.

The court considered the principles governing the appointment of litigation guardians and the circumstances of the case. It acknowledged that the appointment of a litigation guardian was a serious matter, involving a significant intrusion into the respondent's autonomy. The court held that the applicant had demonstrated a substantial risk of injustice if leave to appeal was refused, as the decision to appoint a litigation guardian could significantly impact the respondent's rights and interests. The court also found that there was sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the primary decision to warrant leave, particularly in light of the evolving nature of the evidence regarding the respondent's capacity. Regarding the admission of fresh evidence, the court held that it would only be admitted if it was material and could not have been reasonably adduced at the earlier hearing. The court ultimately granted leave to appeal and ordered that fresh evidence be heard on the appeal.