MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal

MDF filed an application against the Mental Health Review Tribunal seeking an order for the Tribunal to provide better and further particulars of reasons for its decision. The application was dismissed by the primary judge who found that MDF had not demonstrated that the Tribunal had failed to comply with the orders of the Court of Appeal or that the reasons provided were insufficient. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered that the Tribunal provide reasons, but those reasons could be redacted to protect the identity of the relevant person who was the subject of the Attorney-General's certificate under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). MDF argued that the reasons provided were insufficient as they did not provide him with sufficient information to understand the basis of the Tribunal's decision. However, the primary judge found that the reasons provided did comply with the orders of the Court of Appeal and that MDF had not demonstrated that they were insufficient. MDF also argued that the Court of Appeal's decision to redact certain information was incorrect, but the primary judge found that this was a matter for the High Court if special leave was applied for and granted. The primary judge dismissed MDF's application and ordered that the parties file written submissions on costs if they could not agree on the appropriate cost order.