Gilliott v Woodlands - [2006] VSCA 46

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 4654 of 2006

KIM GILLIOTT
	Appellant
v.
SHANE WOODLANDS	Respondent

---

APPLICATION ON SUMMONS

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P. and CHARLES, J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 February 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 February 2006
DATE OF REASONS:	8 March 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 46

---

Coroners – Statutory duty to issue certificate permitting release of body for disposal – Coroners Act s.23(1) – Implied power to decide mode of disposal and to decide by whom and where body is to be disposed of – No merits review of Coroner’s decision – Judicial review only.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms D. Lyle	Jane Penberthy
For the Respondent	Mr M. McKenzie	Paul Ryan
For the Coroner (Amicus)	Ms Corr	Victorian Government Solicitors

MAXWELL, P.,
CHARLES, J.A.:

At about 9:45 am on Saturday, 4 February 2006, Lainie Woodlands was found dead in the front room of her home in Hepburn Springs. She was 20. This was a reportable death within the meaning of the Coroners Act 1985 (“the Act”). As a result, the death was under investigation by the Coroner.

On 6 February 2006, a solicitor acting for Shane Woodlands, the father of the deceased (“the father”), who is the respondent to this appeal, wrote to the Coroner, saying that he had been instructed –

“to make a claim for the body of the deceased who was his daughter”.

It was submitted in the letter that it was appropriate that the remains be released to the father for burial in Sydney.

On the same day, a solicitor acting for Kim Gilliott, the mother of the deceased, and Sam Johnson, the de facto partner of the deceased, wrote to the Coroner, responding to what the solicitor understood to be “a request by the father for the remains of the deceased to be transported to New South Wales and the funeral to be held there.” The letter objected to that request and conveyed a counter-request on behalf of Ms Gilliott and Mr Johnson, to the effect that orders be made by the Coroner for the immediate release of the remains of the deceased to a particular funeral director on their behalf.

When the Coroner was informed of the competing requests, he instructed his clerk to contact the father and the mother and advise them to make submissions in support of their applications and to do so promptly. Submissions were subsequently filed by legal practitioners acting on behalf of the father and the mother respectively. Having received and considered the submissions, the Coroner directed his clerk to forward a copy of each party’s submissions to the other, and invited their responses by 12 noon on 7 February. Responses were subsequently received.

The Coroner’s decision

We now set out the relevant paragraphs from the Coroner’s reasons:

“7.From reading the submissions and the responses I can say that certain facts are either: agreed, not contradicted or self evident. These facts are:
a.the deceased…

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 Gilliott v Woodlands

Details

AGLC: Gilliott v Woodlands [2006] VSCA 46
Case: [2006] VSCA 46
Decision Date: 8 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gilliott v Woodlands, the High Court was tasked with determining the extent of the powers of a coroner in relation to the disposal of a body under the Coroners Act. The deceased, who died in a nursing home, left behind a dispute between two of his daughters, Gilliott and Woodlands, regarding the manner and location of his burial. The legal issues before the court were whether a coroner has an implied power to decide the mode of disposal of a body and to determine by whom and where the body is to be disposed of, and whether such decisions are subject to merits review or only judicial review.

The court held that under section 23(1) of the Coroners Act, a coroner has a statutory duty to issue a certificate permitting the release of a body for disposal. Beyond this, the court found that the coroner has an implied power to decide the mode of disposal and to determine by whom and where the body is to be disposed of. These decisions, however, are not subject to merits review but only to judicial review. The court reasoned that the statutory framework intended for the coroner to exercise significant control over the disposal process, and any errors in this process could only be addressed through judicial review mechanisms rather than a merits review process. This conclusion was based on the nature of the coroner's role and the limited scope for administrative error in the context of body disposal decisions.

Ultimately, the High Court ruled that the coroner's decisions regarding the disposal of the body were within their implied powers and not subject to merits review. The court's decision clarified the scope of coroners' authority in relation to the disposal of bodies and established the appropriate avenues for challenging such decisions.

Orders