Cahill v Nominal Defendant - [2025] ACTSC 472

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Cahill v Nominal Defendant
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 472
Hearing Date:	17 October 2025
Decision Date	22 October 2025
Before:	Balla AJ
Decision:	(1) The Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is not a person under a legal disability within the meaning of r 282 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – APPLICATION – Whether plaintiff is a person with a legal disability – traumatic brain injury – where evidence of impairment does not relate directly to conduct of litigation – Court satisfied plaintiff not a person with a legal disability
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 282, Dictionary
Cases Cited:	De Aquino v Allred [2022] ACTSC 354 Sowmi v Master Electrical Services Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 176 PY v RJS [1982] 2 NSWLR 700
Parties:	Raymond Cahill (Plaintiff) Nominal Defendant (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel D Shillington (Plaintiff) L Armstrong (Defendant)
Solicitors Paul Edmonds & Associates (Plaintiff) Hall & Wilcox (Defendant)
File Number:	SC 2 of 2025

BALLA AJ:

1․Mr Cahill was a pillion passenger on a motor bike when the rider crossed to the incorrect side of the road and collided with an embankment. Mr Cahill sustained a severe traumatic brain injury.
2․Mr Cahill commenced these proceedings against the Nominal Defendant seeking damages for his injuries and disabilities. His claim has been resolved subject to one issue which is the basis for the application heard by me on 17 October 2025.
3․Rule 282 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) provides that a person with a legal disability may only enter into a settlement or compromise with the Court’s approval.
4․The Dictionary to the Rules provides:
person with a legal disability ––means
…

(b) a person with a mental disability.
person with a mental disability, for a proceeding, means a person who is not legally competent to be a party to the proceeding …

5․By an application in proceeding filed on 4 September 2025, the defendant seeks a determination as to whether Mr Cahill is a person with a legal disability.
6․This issue arises from a medical report prepared by a joint expert Professor Cameron, a rehabilitation physician, in which he relevantly says:
It is my opinion that [the plaintiff] is not capable of managing his affairs. This is due to his severe traumatic brain injury. He is at risk of financial exploitation if he has to manage significant amounts of money. …
7․The other evidence relevant to the issue is the following:
(a)Professor Cameron also said “[h]e clearly can make day to day decisions”.
(b)Mr Edmonds has been the plaintiff’s solicitor since 8 November 2020. He has met with the plaintiff on numerous occasions. He has also acted for the plaintiff in other matters. He has always been very alert to the need to assess the plaintiff’s capacity to provide him with instructions. At…

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 Cahill v Nominal Defendant

Details

AGLC: Cahill v Nominal Defendant [2025] ACTSC 472
Case: [2025] ACTSC 472
Decision Date: 22 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cahill v Nominal Defendant involved the plaintiff seeking to proceed with an application for recovery of debts without a legal representative. The defendant contested the application, arguing that the plaintiff was a person with a legal disability due to a traumatic brain injury, which rendered them incapable of managing their own affairs. The dispute was heard in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was a person with a legal disability within the meaning of rule 282 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). Specifically, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's impairment, as evidenced by the brain injury, rendered them unable to manage their litigation without the assistance of a legal representative. The court examined the evidence regarding the plaintiff's condition and concluded that while the plaintiff had suffered a traumatic brain injury, the evidence did not directly relate to their capacity to conduct the litigation. The court found that the plaintiff's ability to understand the nature and consequences of the litigation, and to manage their own affairs in relation to the litigation, was not impaired by the injury. Consequently, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff was not a person with a legal disability for the purposes of the application. As a result, the court dismissed the defendant's contention and ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application as agreed or assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is not a person under a legal disability within the meaning of r 282 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT).

(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application as agreed or assessed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.