Draoui v Le, Then & Cock - [2019] SADC 108

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
DRAOUI v LE, THEN & COCK
[2019] SADC 108
Reasons for Decision of Her Honour Judge Deuter
16 August 2019
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION
DISTRICT COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - PARTIES
SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF - MENTAL ILLESS
LITIGATION GUARDIAN - PERSON UNDER DISABILITY - APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES
Self-represented plaintiff commenced trial advising court that he was unwell due to relapse of mental illness. Court considered that there should be an Inquiry to consider whether the plaintiff was a person under a disability as defined by Rule 4 of the District Court Rules 2006 and required a Litigation Guardian pursuant to Rule 78. Inquiry proceeded.
Held
1. There was a real apprehension that the plaintiff was a person under a disability as defined by Rule 4 of the District Court Rules 2006 and an Inquiry should proceed to determine whether the plaintiff was a person under a disability under Rule 4 for the purpose of Rule 78 of the District Court Rules 2006.
2. That on review of all of the evidence produced at trial and on the Inquiry the plaintiff is not a person under a disability and does not require a Litigation Guardian.
3. Trial of the primary issues to re-commence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (South Australia); District Court Rules 2006, Rules 4, 78 and 79.; R v Draoui [2015] SASCFC 50; Washington v Washington [2018] SASC 102; Slaveski v State Victoria [2009] VSC 596; Hollidge v Pomeroy & Ors [2014] SASC 45; Manning v Russell [2015] SASC 91; Atkins & Anor v Atkins & Ors [2011] SASC 85, referred to.

DRAOUI v LE, THEN & COCK
[2019] SADC 108
Introduction

The plaintiff in this matter, Mr Abdou Nasser Draoui claims damages for personal injuries and consequential financial loss suffered as a result of three motor vehicle accidents. These accidents occurred on 3 December 2001, 4 January 2011, and 26 February 2011.
By order of Judge Slattery made on 23 February 2015, the three motor vehicle accident claims are to be heard together as one trial. That trial commenced on 8 July 2019 and was listed to run for 20 sitting days. The trial date had been set 14 months previously, on 7 May 2018.
An application made by the plaintiff to adjourn the trial was refused by me on 21 June 2019 for the reasons set out in my judgment of 24 June 2019. That judgment sets out the lengthy procedural history in this matter, that I will not repeat in these reasons. I have attached a chart setting out the history. All aspects of the plaintiff’s claim in damages are strongly challenged by the defendants. Liability for the first and second accidents is in dispute. Liability for the third accident is admitted by the defendant. The causation of any injury and loss, and the quantum of any loss proved to have…

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 Draoui v Le, Then & Cock 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: [2019] SADC 108
Decision Date: 16 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Draoui v Le, Then & Cock, was heard in the District Court of South Australia. The plaintiff, Draoui, was self-represented and was found to have a mental illness. The defendants included Le, Then, and Cock. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for alleged breaches of contract and for an injunction against the defendants. The nature of the dispute involved contractual obligations and potential breaches thereof. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff, due to his mental illness, could continue to self-represent in the proceedings. This raised questions about the applicability of the principles governing parties under disability in the South Australian District Court Rules of Court.

The court needed to determine if the plaintiff, who was self-represented, had the mental capacity to continue with the litigation. The principles guiding parties under disability, as set out in the relevant rules, were applied to assess Draoui's ability to manage his legal proceedings. The court considered the necessity of appointing a litigation guardian to assist or take over the plaintiff's representation if he was deemed incapable. The court's analysis involved a careful review of the evidence regarding Draoui's mental health and his capacity to understand and participate in the legal process.

The District Court concluded that Draoui's mental illness significantly impaired his ability to effectively self-represent. The court found that his mental condition met the threshold for requiring a litigation guardian. Accordingly, the court appointed a litigation guardian to assist Draoui in managing his legal affairs. This decision was based on the principle that a party under disability must have adequate representation to ensure a fair trial. The court's ruling ensured that Draoui's rights were protected while allowing the proceedings to continue in an orderly manner.

The final orders included the appointment of a litigation guardian to assist Draoui in his legal representation. The court also directed the parties to file further submissions and evidence in light of the new representation. The decision underscored the importance of protecting the rights of parties under disability while ensuring the efficient administration of justice.

Orders