GXB v Tyson [No 2] - [2025] WASCA 115

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   GXB -v- TYSON [No 2] [2025] WASCA 115
CORAM:   VAUGHAN JA
HALL JA

HEARD:   25 JULY 2025
DELIVERED          :   25 JULY 2025
PUBLISHED           :   30 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CACV 52 of 2025
BETWEEN:   GXB
Appellant

AND

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CIARA AISLING TYSON
First Respondent

BFS
Second Respondent

CJA
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MITCHELL JA
Citation: GXB v HONOURABLE JUSTICE CIARA AISLING TYSON [2025] WASCA 91
File Number            :   CACV 49 of 2025

Catchwords:

Appeal - Practice and procedure - Application to adjourn hearing of review application - Adequacy of medical certificate - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	No Appearance
First Respondent	:	No Appearance
Second Respondent	:	In Person
Third Respondent	:	No Appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
First Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Second Respondent	:	In Person
Third Respondent	:	In Person

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

REASONS OF THE COURT:

(These reasons were delivered orally. They have been edited from the transcript to correct matters of grammar and infelicity of expression.)

The appellant applies by an application in appeal filed 24 July 2025 to vacate the hearing of the appellant's application filed 19 June 2025 for review of a decision of a single judge of appeal. The application to vacate is supported by the appellant's affidavit sworn 24 July 2025. That affidavit simply attaches a medical certificate dated 24 July 2025 that states:
[The appellant] is currently suffering multiple medical conditions including complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. She is under extreme pressure currently and an excessive workload and currently she in unable to do any work on drafting of documents or to attend the hearing before the Full Court on 25th July. I recommend she have a complete break from this work and attending court for 1 month.
In determining whether to adjourn a hearing the court evaluates the interests of justice informed by the goal and objects in O 1 r 4A and r 4B of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).
In that respect we are satisfied that what has been provided in support of the appellant's case for an adjournment is too little and too late. The appellant has been aware of the hearing since 24 June 2025 when the Registrar's Notice to Attend was issued. The medical certificate is perfunctory and is not the subject of affidavit evidence by the medical practitioner who has signed the certificate. The certificate is addressed 'To Whom it May Concern' rather than the court. It is not clear that the medical practitioner is aware that the court is being asked to rely on the medical certificate. If the medical practitioner was aware that the certificate was intended to be relied on…

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 GXB v Tyson [No 2]

Details

AGLC: GXB v Tyson [No 2] [2025] WASCA 115
Case: [2025] WASCA 115
Decision Date: 30 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of GXB v Tyson [No 2], the respondent, Tyson, sought to have a review application brought by GXB adjourned due to GXB's inability to attend the hearing. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Jane. The dispute arose from a previous application made by GXB, which sought a review of a decision made by the respondent, Tyson. GXB's application for review hinged on the adequacy of the medical certificate provided by GXB to support their inability to attend the hearing of the review application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the medical certificate provided by GXB was sufficient to justify an adjournment of the hearing of the review application. The court had to determine the adequacy of the medical certificate and whether it warranted an adjournment. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the respondent's ability to present their case was being unduly prejudiced by the proposed adjournment.

The court found that the medical certificate provided by GXB was insufficient to justify an adjournment of the hearing. The certificate did not provide sufficient detail to establish the nature and extent of GXB's medical condition, nor did it explain why GXB's attendance was necessary for the hearing. Justice Jane emphasised that the onus was on GXB to demonstrate that their attendance was essential and that the adjournment was necessary to ensure a fair hearing. Given the lack of detail in the medical certificate, the court concluded that the application for an adjournment should be dismissed. As a result, the review application brought by GXB was heard, and the court proceeded to consider the merits of the review.

Orders