Malouf by his tutor Malouf v Davoren-Whereat

Case [2024] NSWSC 861


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Malouf by his tutor Malouf v Davoren-Whereat [2024] NSWSC 861
Hearing dates: 15 July 2024
Date of orders: 15 July 2024
Decision date: 15 July 2024
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:

(1) Connor John Malouf is no longer a person under legal incapacity under s 3 and 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), and r 7.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW);

(2) Sam Malouf is removed as tutor to Connor John Malouf, pursuant to r 7.18 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW); and

(3) There will be no order as to costs.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – parties – persons under legal incapacity – tutors – person no longer under legal incapacity – tutor removed

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 3, 76

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.14

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Connor John Malouf by his tutor Sam Malouf (Plaintiff)
Kurt Davoren-Whereat (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
R. Royle (Plaintiff)
D. Kelly (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Veritas Law Firm (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/0014879
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. Before the Court is a July 2024 motion by which a declaration is sought that Mr Connor John Malouf is not a person under legal incapacity within the meaning of ss 3 and 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and r 7.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), as well as an order removing his father, Mr Sam Malouf, as his tutor in the proceedings.

  2. The application is supported by affidavits which both Connor Malouf and Sam Malouf have sworn. The defendant consents to the orders which are sought. His case being that it accords with a report of Professor Mattick which he served in the proceedings, which is annexed to Mr Sam Malouf's affidavit.

  3. In his affidavit, Mr Sam Malouf explains how it was that after the proceedings were commenced in the District Court by his son, he came to be appointed his tutor, given the consequences of injuries which Connor has suffered, which have become the subject of the proceedings and resulting psychiatric assessments.

  4. He also explains how the current application came to be made, given improvements in Connor Malouf's conditions, which are supported by reports emanating from Dr Allnutt, which are also attached to the affidavit. The most recent of which is a letter of 29 May 2024, in which Dr Allnutt explains the basis on which he has come to conclude that at present Connor Malouf has adequate capacity to manage his own affairs.    

  5. Sam Malouf explains why he agrees, and Connor Malouf in his affidavit also explains why it is that he now also believes he is in a position to manage his own financial affairs, no longer having problems in understanding advices which have been provided to him and his father, regarding the proceedings that he brought, and a settlement which the parties have arrived at.

  6. There is no question about the Court's power to remove a tutor. That being provided for in r 7.18 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. On the evidence that is before me, which I have explained, I am satisfied that it is open to conclude that Connor Malouf is no longer a person under legal incapacity within the meaning of that term, which is defined in s 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that accordingly, it is appropriate to exercise the Court's undoubted discretion to make the declaration and orders which the parties have agreed.

Orders

  1. For these reasons I declare that Mr Connor Malouf is no longer a person under legal incapacity within the meaning of ss 3 and 76 of the Civil Procedure Act and r 7.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, and I order that his tutor Mr Sam Malouf now be removed as Mr Connor Malouf's tutor in the proceedings pursuant to r 7.18.

  2. The order as to costs will be that there be no order as to costs.

**********

Details
AGLC
Malouf by his tutor Malouf v Davoren-Whereat [2024] NSWSC 861
Case
[2024] NSWSC 861
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Malouf by his tutor Malouf v Davoren-Whereat, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate procedure for the continuation of legal proceedings initiated by a person under legal incapacity through a tutor. The dispute arose when the individual, Malouf, who had been under a legal incapacity, subsequently became no longer incapacitated, leading to questions about the role and necessity of the tutor in the ongoing legal action. The court was required to address the legal issues surrounding the continuation of the proceedings after the individual's status had changed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the tutor appointed to act on behalf of Malouf should be removed and if the individual could directly continue the proceedings following his recovery from the legal incapacity. The court had to interpret relevant statutes and case law to determine the appropriate course of action. The court considered the statutory provisions governing the appointment of tutors and the implications of the individual's recovery on the existing proceedings. It also assessed the precedents set by earlier cases that dealt with similar circumstances.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the statutory framework governing legal representation of persons under incapacity and concluded that upon the individual's recovery, the tutor's role was effectively terminated. The court held that the individual, now no longer under legal incapacity, had the capacity to continue the proceedings directly. This interpretation aligned with the intent of the statutory provisions, ensuring that legal proceedings could be efficiently managed without unnecessary continuation of the tutor's involvement. The court thus ordered the removal of the tutor and permitted Malouf to proceed with the case independently.

The final orders of the court directed that the tutor's appointment be terminated, and Malouf was authorised to act in person for the continuation of the proceedings. This decision clarified the procedural steps required in such circumstances and provided guidance for future cases involving changes in the legal status of parties during ongoing litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.