Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter - [2009] WASC 229

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP (INC) -v- ROSSITER [2009] WASC 229

CORAM: MARTIN CJ

HEARD: 14 AUGUST 2009

DELIVERED : 14 AUGUST 2009

PUBLISHED : 20 AUGUST 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 2406 of 2009

BETWEEN: BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP (INC)
Plaintiff
AND
CHRISTIAN ROSSITER
Defendant
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervener

FILE NO/S :CIV 2436 of 2009

BETWEEN :CHRISTIAN ROSSITER
Plaintiff
AND
BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP (INC)
Defendant
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervener

Catchwords:

Legal obligations of a medical service provider which has assumed responsibility for the care of a patient - Patient is a quadriplegic - Patient is mentally competent - Patient has directed medical service provider to discontinue provision of nutrition and general hydration - Consequence of discontinuing provision of nutrition and general hydration will be that patient dies from starvation - Patient also requests prescription of analgesics for the purposes of sedation and pain relief as he approaches death

Provision of declaratory relief in respect of criminality

Common law - Mental capacity - Principle of autonomy or self-determination - Consent to medical treatment - Informed consent - Right of patient to determine whether or not they will continue to receive medical treatment

Criminal Code (WA) - Duty to provide necessaries of life pursuant to s 262 - Interpretation of 'having charge' of another - Surgical and medical treatment within the meaning of s 259 - Amendments pursuant to the Acts Amendment (Consent to Medical Treatment) Act 2008 (WA) - General principles relating to palliative care

Legislation:

Acts Amendment (Consent to Medical Treatment) Act 2008 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA)
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)

Result:

Declarations given

Category: A

Representation:

CIV 2406 of 2009

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr J D Allanson SC & Ms J A Thornton
Defendant:     Ms L B Black
Intervener:     Mr R M Mitchell SC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Allens Arthur Robinson
Defendant:     Hammond Legal
Intervener:     State Solicitor for Western Australia

CIV 2436 of 2009

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Ms L B Black
Defendant:     Mr J D Allanson SC & Ms J A Thornton
Intervener:     Mr R M Mitchell SC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Hammond Legal
Defendant:     Allens Arthur Robinson
Intervener:     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Amicus Curiae                  :     Mr P O'Meara (Right to Life Association)

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

Adult Guardian v Langham [2005] QSC 127; (2006) 1 Qd R 1
Airedale National Health Service Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789
Auckland Area Health Board v Attorney General [1993] 1 NZLR 235
Bouvia v Superior Court of Los Angeles County 179 Cal App 3d 1127 (1986)
Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Sansom [1981] WAR 32
Commonwealth v Sterling Nicholas Duty Free Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 19; (1972) 126 CLR 297
F v R (1983) 33 SASR 189
Hunter and New England Area Health Service v A [2009] NSWSC 761
Imperial Tobacco v Attorney‑General [1981] AC 718
Malette v Shulman (1990) 67 DLR (4th) 321
Ms B v An NHS Hospital Trust [2002] EWHC 429…

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 Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter 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: [2009] WASC 229
Decision Date: 14 AUGUST 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter, the dispute centred around the legal obligations of a medical service provider, Brightwater Care Group, who had assumed responsibility for the care of a quadriplegic patient, Mr Rossiter. The patient, who was mentally competent, directed Brightwater Care Group to discontinue the provision of nutrition and general hydration, an action which would result in his death from starvation. Additionally, he requested a prescription of analgesics to manage sedation and pain as he approached death. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the court was required to determine whether Brightwater Care Group had any legal obligations to continue the provision of nutrition and hydration against the wishes of Mr Rossiter.

The court was tasked with interpreting the common law principles relating to the provision of medical treatment, particularly in relation to the principle of autonomy and self-determination. It was necessary to consider whether a mentally competent patient has the right to determine whether or not they will continue to receive medical treatment. Furthermore, the court needed to interpret the relevant statutory provisions, particularly those found in the Criminal Code (WA), to determine whether Brightwater Care Group had a duty to provide necessaries of life under section 262. The court also had to interpret the term 'having charge' of another and consider the meaning of surgical and medical treatment within the context of section 259. Amendments made by the Acts Amendment (Consent to Medical Treatment) Act 2008 (WA) were also relevant to the interpretation of the law.

The court found that Mr Rossiter, being mentally competent, had the right to determine whether or not he would continue to receive medical treatment. It held that Brightwater Care Group had no legal obligation to provide nutrition and hydration against his wishes. The court also found that the provision of such treatment would not constitute a breach of any statutory duty under section 262 of the Criminal Code (WA). The court held that Brightwater Care Group was not 'having charge' of Mr Rossiter in the relevant sense and that the administration of palliative care, including the prescription of analgesics, was within the ambit of the patient's autonomy and self-determination. The court further held that the provision of such palliative care would not be criminal under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (WA). Ultimately, the court granted the declaratory relief sought by Brightwater Care Group.

Orders