Glenda Hall v ACT Chief Psychiatrist Act Mental Health

[2013] ACTSC 227

GLENDA HALL v ACT CHIEF PSYCHIATRIST ACT MENTAL HEALTH & ORS
 [2013] ACTSC 227 (30 October 2013)

EQUITY – injunction restraining ACAT proceedings – where application brought to allow commencement of another matter in Supreme Court – where other proceedings could run in parallel – where­ matters in possible new proceedings without sufficient relevance to justify injunction

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SC 416 of 2013

Judge:             Burns J            
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              30 October 2013        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 416 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          

BETWEEN:  GLENDA HALL

Applicant

v        

AND:ACT CHIEF PSYCIATRIST ACT MENTAL HEALTH

First Respondent

ROD MENERE
Second Respondent

ACT CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Third Respondent

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
Fourth Respondent

ACT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY
Fifth Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Burns J
Date:  30 October 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an injunction is refused.

1. This is an application which was commenced by Glenda Margaret Hall seeking an injunction effectively, as I understand it, to preclude the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal from considering whether to make an Assessment Order to support an application for a Psychiatric Treatment Order.

2. Annexed to the Originating Claim lodged by Ms Hall is a letter from the ACAT dated 22 October this year which notifies her that there are proceedings listed tomorrow, 31 October 2013 before the ACAT for that body to consider making an Assessment Order under the provisions of the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT).

3. Ms Hall effectively says that one of the reasons why she wants an injunction to stop the ACAT proceedings which are listed for tomorrow is that she wants to commence proceedings against the Australian Federal Police to require them to provide answers to her as to what they have done, if indeed anything, in relation to certain complaints that she has made about issues and in particular issues relating to property owners in the vicinity of her current residence.

4. I understand Ms Hall says that she is concerned that the real owners, her neighbours, are not there and that things are happening on their property when they are not there.

5. Section 16 of the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act provides that in certain circumstances the ACAT may order an Assessment Order in relation to a person.  That is a process which may lead to an application for a Psychiatric Treatment Order although that is not necessarily inevitably the case.

6. It is clear that Ms Hall has an opportunity to appear before the ACAT in any proceedings such as those which are scheduled for tomorrow with respect to the possibility of the ACAT making an Assessment Order.

7. Whilst I have no doubt that Ms Hall is concerned about those matters that she raises before me today the issues that she raises in the current proceedings before this Court are not such as to justify the granting of an injunction to stop the proceedings before the ACAT.

8. Any proceedings which Ms Hall intends to bring are ultimately is a matter for her, and I am not suggesting or recommending that she bring any proceedings in respect of the matters she complains of today, but any such proceedings can proceed in parallel with the proceedings in the ACAT.  The two are not so intimately connected as to require the ACAT not to continue with its proceedings under the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act whilst Ms Hall pursues any issues that she may have with the Australian Federal Police.

9. There is simply no prima facie case with respect to the application that

   
   

   Ms Hall makes with respect to these proceedings. The matters that she refers to do not have sufficient relevance to the proceedings before the ACAT to require that those proceedings be held in abeyance until after Ms Hall’s issues with the Australian Federal Police are resolved and accordingly the application for an injunction will be refused.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Burns.

Associate:

Date:              18 November 2013

Counsel for the Applicant:  The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:   Ms L Holley
Solicitor for the First Respondent:  ACT Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Third Respondent:                   Mr A Morris
Date of Hearing:   30 October 2013
Date of Judgment:   30 October 2013