M v P [No 3]

The parties in this case were M, the plaintiff, and P, the defendant. The dispute arose from an alleged defamatory statement made by the defendant against the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The defendant sought a declaration that the plaintiff was a person under a disability and that a next friend be appointed, or alternatively, directions for the assistance of the Public Advocate. The application was made pursuant to Order 70 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff was a person under a disability, which would justify the appointment of a next friend or the involvement of the Public Advocate. The central issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's application, given that no medical evidence was presented. The court needed to consider the appropriate legal pathway to follow, as the case turned on its own specific facts.

The court considered the lack of medical evidence presented in support of the application. It concluded that without such evidence, it was not in a position to determine whether the plaintiff was a person under a disability. The court acknowledged the importance of the appropriate pathway in such cases but found that it could not proceed without the necessary evidence. The court ultimately declined to make the declaration sought by the defendant and did not order the appointment of a next friend or the assistance of the Public Advocate.

No final orders were made in the text provided, as the court found that it was not in a position to determine the issue of disability without the necessary evidence.