PARTIES: David Gregory Murphy v Ronald Peter Doman (As Representative of the estate of the late Min Simpson) and Anor
JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA Handley JA Tobias JA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 8149/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Knight DCJ
COUNSEL: A: In Person R: M Barko
SOLICITORS: A: N/A R: Boyd House & Partners Solicitors
CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Litigants in person - District Court Rules Pt 45 - Test of incompetence - Guardians ad liteus
LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) District Court Act s. 127 (2)(c) District Court Rules Pt 45
DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted subject to the notice of appeal being filed within 21 days; 2. Appeal allowed with costs; 3. Judgment for the plaintiff for $13,970 and the orders for costs made by Knight DCJ on 18 September set aside; 4. The assessment of damages is remitted to Knight DCJ to be further heard and determined by him, on the existing evidence, according to law; 5. The respondents to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40996 of 2002
MEAGHER JA HANDLEY JA TOBIAS JA
Thursday, 11 September 2003
DAVID GREGORY MURPHY V RONALD PETER DOMAN (AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MIN SIMPSON) & ANOR
FACTS
The appellant (the plaintiff below) sued the respondents (the defendants below) in conversion. He appeared in person, and his action came before Knight DCJ on 17 February 2000. Separate trials were ordered on the issues of liability and damages. Knight DCJ found for the appellant on the liability issue, and the proceedings were stood over for a hearing on damages.
On the issue of damages, Knight DCJ heard the evidence for five days from 29 January 2001 to 2 February 2001, and then reserved judgment. He proposed that the parties should file further written submissions on the question.
The appellant spent the next eight months endeavouring to comply with Knight DCJ’s directions as to the filing of submissions. At all times the appellant was in default. Knight DCJ listed a directions hearing on the matter for 6 August 2001. During the course of that hearing, the appellant had on his person the submissions that were required to be filed. He declined to file or tender those submissions. Knight DCJ then reserved judgment on the issue of damages without the benefit of the appellant’s written submissions.
At the time, the appellant was suffering from a psychosis arising out of a pre-existing condition of schizophrenia.
HELD per Meagher JA (Tobias JA agreeing)
The trial judge, who acted at all times with great patience and kindness, can hardly be criticized for taking the course he did. The fact was, nonetheless, that the appellant had his litigation adjudicated upon without being heard. This must…
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 Murphy v Doman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Murphy v Doman [2003] NSWCA 249
Case
[2003] NSWCA 249
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a dispute between Murphy (the plaintiff) and Doman (the defendant) in the District Court of New South Wales. The central issue revolved around the plaintiff's capacity to conduct litigation as a litigant in person, and the subsequent appointment of a guardian ad litem.
The primary legal question before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court judge erred in finding that the plaintiff was not a person under a legal disability for the purposes of District Court Rules Pt 45, and consequently, in refusing to appoint a guardian ad litem. This involved determining the appropriate test for assessing a litigant's competence to manage their own legal affairs.
The Court of Appeal held that the District Court judge had applied an incorrect test. It found that the judge had focused too narrowly on the plaintiff's ability to understand the proceedings, rather than on their capacity to conduct the litigation effectively and protect their own interests. The Court reiterated that the test for a legal disability under Pt 45 requires an assessment of whether a person is unable to manage their own affairs by reason of mental infirmity or disorder. Applying this correct test, the Court concluded that the plaintiff did suffer from a legal disability.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the costs orders made by the District Court, and ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff for $13,970. The assessment of damages was remitted to the District Court for further hearing and determination by the original judge. The respondents were also granted a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal granted subject to the notice of appeal being filed within 21 days; 2. Appeal allowed with costs; 3. Judgment for the plaintiff for $13,970 and the orders for costs made by Knight DCJ on 18 September set aside; 4. The assessment of damages is remitted to Knight DCJ to be further heard and determined by him, on the existing evidence, according to law; 5. The respondents to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act.