Farr v State of Queensland - [2009] NSWSC 906

CITATION: Farr v State of Queensland [2009] NSWSC 906

HEARING DATE(S): 20 August 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 August 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Price J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 20 August 2009

DECISION: I declare that the plaintiff is not under a legal incapacity for the purposes of UCPR rule 7.14 and in particular for the purposes of: (a) settling the proceedings with the second and third defendants, and (b) carrying on the proceedings against the first defendant.

CATCHWORDS: Common law - Practice and Procedure - declarations - whether plaintiff under a legal incapacity for carrying on and settling proceedings - whether plaintiff incapable of managing own affairs.

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 3, s 76(4)
Mental Health Act 1958 s 18
NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 s 41

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co Ltd [2003] 3 All ER 162
P v R [2003] NSWSC 819
PY v RJS [1982] 2 NSWLR 700

PARTIES: Samantha Farr
State of Queensland & 2 Others

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20231/05

COUNSEL: DJ Higgs SC and A Cheshire (Plaintiff)
B Bradley (1st Defendant)
M Windsor SC (2nd and 3rd Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

PRICE J

20 August 2009

20231/05 Samantha Farr v State of Queensland & 2 Ors

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 13 July 2005 the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the State of Queensland, the first defendant; the South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service, the second defendant; and the Sydney South West Area Health Service, the third defendant, claiming damages arising from her management and treatment at various hospitals in Queensland and in New South Wales between 1 February 1999 to 19 July 2006.

2 The gravamen of the plaintiff's claim is that defendants negligently made and maintained a diagnosis of myasthenia gravis and failed to treat her psychiatric symptoms such that she has developed a severe and chronic conversion disorder.

3 Following mediation on 25 May 2009, an offer of settlement was made by the second and third defendants in the terms of the consent judgment which is annexure B to the affidavit of Maria Feletti sworn 28 July 2009.

4 The plaintiff, in her affidavit sworn 28 July 2009, states that she has been advised by her counsel, David Higgs SC and Anthony Cheshire, that the settlement was within a reasonable range considering the risks associated with litigation and the potential quantum of damages she might recover if successful at trial. She has instructed her solicitor to accept the offer and understands that the proceedings against the first defendant remain on foot with the risk and potential costs associated with the continuing litigation.

5 Before the proposed settlement can proceed, various matters have arisen for consideration which include the subject of the present amended notice of motion which has been brought on behalf of the plaintiff. The orders sought are as follows:

1. A declaration that the plaintiff is not…

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 Farr v State of Queensland 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] NSWSC 906
Decision Date: 20 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Farr v State of Queensland, the plaintiff, Mr Farr, brought an action seeking a declaration against the State of Queensland regarding the validity of certain administrative decisions. The dispute arose from actions taken by the state government in relation to land use and environmental management. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had the legal capacity to carry on and settle the proceedings and whether he was incapable of managing his own affairs. The court had to consider the evidence and arguments presented regarding Mr Farr's mental health and ability to engage in legal proceedings. The State of Queensland argued that Mr Farr lacked the necessary capacity due to his mental health conditions, which would render any declarations sought by him ineffective.

The court examined the evidence provided and considered the applicable legal principles regarding legal capacity. It was determined that Mr Farr did not have the requisite legal capacity to manage his own affairs or to carry on and settle the proceedings. The court found that his mental health conditions significantly impaired his ability to understand and engage in the legal process. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was incapable of managing his own affairs and, therefore, the declarations sought were not valid.

The court ordered that the proceedings be stayed due to the plaintiff's incapacity and that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that his affairs were managed in his best interests. The decision underscores the importance of assessing legal capacity in cases involving individuals with mental health issues, particularly when they seek to initiate or continue legal proceedings.

Orders