Matute v Cramer

Case [2023] SASCA 78

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Civil)

MATUTE v CRAMER

[2023] SASCA 78

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  (ex tempore)

(The Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey and the Honourable Justice Bleby)

13 July 2023

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW - IN GENERAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT - SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OR MATTER OF PROCEDURE - MATTERS OF PROCEDURE - INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

HEALTH LAW - MENTAL HEALTH GENERALLY - GENERAL LAW AFFECTING PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS OR IMPAIRED CAPACITY - CONDUCTING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS - LITIGATION GUARDIANS AND NEXT FRIENDS

Appeal against decision of a Judge of the District Court dismissing an appeal from the decision of a District Court Master to appoint a litigation guardian.

The applicant is an unrepresented litigant who claims at least $7 million in damages in personal injury proceedings arising from a motor vehicle accident.  The respondent sought an order that the applicant be declared a person under a disability and that there be appointed a litigation guardian.  Following a lengthy inquiry, a District Court Master found that the applicant is a person under a disability and required a litigation guardian following which the Public Trustee was appointed.  The applicant sought to appeal against that decision around a year after it was made.  After hearing argument a Judge refused the extension of time and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 

HELD (Livesey ACJ and Bleby JA, refusing the application for leave to appeal):

1.The applicant has not demonstrated any reason to doubt the decision of the judge nor any basis to consider that the judge erroneously failed to identify relevant and material error in the decision-making of the Master.

2.The Court is particularly reluctant to grant leave to appeal where the orders do not affect the substantive rights of the parties.

Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 74.5, 74.6 and 212.2, referred to.
Fletcher v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2023] SASCA 36; Forrest v ASIC (2012) 247 CLR 486; McDonald v Attorney-General for the State of South Australia [2022] SASCA 43; Manning v Russell (2015) 123 SASR 135; Matute v Cramer [2022] SADC 78; M, K v Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection [2021] SASCA 27; Rankine v State of South Australia [2022] SASCA 18; Slaveski v State of Victoria (2009) 25 VR 160; Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568, considered.

MATUTE v CRAMER
[2023] SASCA 78

Court of Appeal – Civil: Livesey ACJ and Bleby JA

THE COURT (ex tempore):

Introduction

  1. By a Notice of Appeal dated 11 April 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of a judge of the District Court delivered on 29 June 2022.  That decision dismissed an application for an extension of time to appeal and an appeal against a decision of a District Court Master appointing a litigation guardian.[1] 

Continue reading Matute v Cramer

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Matute v Cramer [2023] SASCA 78
Case
[2023] SASCA 78
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Matute, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The respondent, Cramer, did not oppose the application. The underlying dispute concerned the applicant's capacity to conduct legal proceedings, particularly in relation to a claim where liability had been admitted.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was mentally unable to make rational decisions regarding her litigation, and consequently, whether the appointment of a litigation guardian was necessary. The court also considered the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant, which included allegations of miscarriages of justice and that the court and respondent were "torturing" her.

The court reviewed affidavit evidence, including a psychiatrist's report which detailed the applicant's severe mental illness, past diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder, and ongoing psychiatric disturbance, including paranoid ideation and irrationality. Despite the applicant's intelligence and education, the psychiatrist noted repeated irrational behaviour in her dealings with medical specialists, the respondent, and the court, and concluded that the litigation had contributed to her mental disturbance. The judge agreed with the Master's conclusion that the applicant was not mentally able to make rational decisions about her proceedings and that she needed the assistance of a litigation guardian, noting a lack of rational basis for her asserted claim value. The judge found that while it was necessary to be cautious in such inquiries, the applicant's conduct and attitude towards the litigation, including her belief in a conspiracy, supported the need for a litigation guardian.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal and ordered that the application for leave to appeal and associated applications be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal.

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

The applicant has expressed the wish to proceed in the Court of Appeal. The respondent does not oppose this. Accordingly, an order will be made permitting the application for leave to appeal, and the associated applications, to be heard and determined in this Court. The judgment dismissing the appeal The judge reviewed the affidavit evidence before the Master. This included a report from a psychiatrist, Dr Davis, who had been directed by the Master to assess the plaintiff and answer questions posed by the Master. The applicant refused to attend any psychiatric examination. Dr Davis prepared a report based on his review of the medical records and history of the applicant. Dr Davis referred to the applicant’s severe mental illness and past diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder. Although there had been no formal assessment of the applicant’s mental state since discharge from Noarlunga Hospital in 2016, in the opinion of Dr Davis:[4]However, extensive documentation highlights ongoing psychiatric disturbance with manifest paranoid ideation and irrationality, thought disorder, impairment of insight and disturbance of judgement. At times, some of the paranoid ideation is of delusional intensity. The plaintiff continues to deny the reality of mental illness and its impact on her life.[4] Matute v Cramer [2022] SADC 78, [6]. Both the judge and Dr Davis referred in favourable terms to the applicant’s apparent intelligence and education. Nonetheless, Dr Davis noted repeated irrational behaviour in the applicant’s dealings with independent medical specialists, the respondent and the Court, as revealed by the documentation provided to him. Importantly, according to Dr Davis:[5]It is apparent that engagement in these protracted proceedings has contributed to further disturbance of mental state. The documents also highlight a striking naivety and irrationality in relation to the plaintiff’s sense of entitlements and eligibility for substantial financial compensation.[5] Matute v Cramer [2022] SADC 78, [6]. The judge observed that whilst the applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the report of Dr Davis, she did not take that opportunity. The judge referred to the Master’s conclusion that in 2020 and into the future, the plaintiff was not mentally able to make rational decisions about taking, defending or settling proceedings.[6] [6] Matute v Cramer [2022] SADC 78, [7]. Although the Public Trustee was appointed litigation guardian, she took no active role in the applicant’s appeal or subsequent challenges to the orders made. She has taken no role in relation to the matters before this Court. In determining the appeal before him, the judge considered and applied the relevant Rules of Court and authorities such as Manning v Russell.[7] [7] Manning v Russell (2015) 123 SASR 135, [15] (Nicholson J). See also Slaveski v State of Victoria (2009) 25 VR 160, [32]-[34] (Kyrou J). The judge observed that the Notice of Appeal was difficult to follow but there were six grounds of appeal. These included that various Masters had committed miscarriages of justice and that the court and the respondent were “torturing” the applicant. Ultimately, the judge found that whilst it was necessary to guard against conducting inquiries such as these “too easily”, he was not satisfied that any of the grounds were made out:[8]My observations of the appellant are that she is an intelligent and articulate person. However, her attitude to the litigation and her conduct in Court is concerning. She appears to believe that there is a conspiracy against her and that the solicitors and the Court are involved in that. Regardless of the medical evidence before the Court, my own observations are that the applicant needs the assistance of a litigation guardian to conduct her claim. Objectively, she has a good claim because liability is admitted. She asserts that her claim is worth $7 million. There appears to be no rational basis for a claim of that magnitude. The appellant clearly needs assistance to make rational decisions about the conduct of the proceedings and possible settlement.[8] Matute v Cramer [2022] SADC 78, [20], [25].The application for leave to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.