Legal Research
Cases
Murray v Williams

Murray v Williams

Case [2010] NSWSC 1243 29 October 2010

Standing

Limitation Periods

Jurisdiction

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION:
Murray v Williams [2010] NSWSC 1243

JURISDICTION:

FILE NUMBER(S):
2010/125569

HEARING DATE(S):
25 October 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 October 2010

PARTIES:
Christopher William Charles Murray by his tutor Narelle Decima Murray - Plaintiff
Suzanne Gaye Williams (both in her own capacity and as executor of the estate of the late Norma Gladys Murray - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF:
Hammerschlag J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
R.J. Weber SC with J. McLeod [For plaintiff personally]
M.R. Lawson [For the Tutor]
M.A. Izzo [Defendant]

SOLICITORS:
Colin W Love & Co [For plaintiff personally]
R & M Legal [For the Tutor]
Stockman & Evans [Defendant]

CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – legal incapacity in relation to the conduct of legal proceedings – s 3(e) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – proceedings were instituted purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff by a tutor on the basis that he was a person under legal incapacity in relation to the proceedings – the plaintiff put in issue whether he was such a person – the tutor moved on motion for an order to determine whether he was or was not – requirements for legal incapacity

LEGISLATION CITED:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Trustee Act 1925 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

CATEGORY:
Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED:
Rickard Constructions Pty Ltd v Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 234
Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 3 All ER 162
Farr v State of Queensland [2009] NSWSC 906
Murphy v Doman (as representative of the estate of the late Min Simpson) and Another (2003) 58 NSWLR 51

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
The Court answers the question, is Christopher William Charles Murray a person under a legal incapacity in relation to the conduct of these proceedings? No

JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EXPEDITION LIST

HAMMERSCHLAG J

29 OCTOBER 2010

2010/125569 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM CHARLES MURRAY by his tutor NARELLE DECIMA MURRAY -V- SUZANNE GAYE WILLIAMS (both in her own capacity and as executor of the estate of the late NORMA GLADYS MURRAY)

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The sole question before the Court is whether the plaintiff, Christopher William Charles Murray (to whom I shall refer, with no disrespect intended, as Christopher) is a person under a legal incapacity in relation to the conduct of these proceedings.
The question arises in the following way.
Section 3(e) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (“the Act”) provides relevantly as follows:
person under legal incapacity means any person who is under a legal incapacity in relation to the conduct of legal proceedings […] and, in particular, includes:
(e) an incommunicate person, being a person who has such a physical or mental disability that he or she is unable to receive communications, or express his or her will, with respect to his or her property…

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 Murray v Williams

Details

AGLC: Murray v Williams [2010] NSWSC 1243
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1243
Decision Date: 29 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Murray v Williams involved a dispute concerning the legal capacity of the plaintiff to conduct the proceedings himself. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Murray, contested the authority of his tutor, Williams, to act on his behalf in the litigation. The core issue was whether Murray was legally incapacitated, as Williams claimed, and therefore required a tutor to manage his legal affairs.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the interpretation and application of section 3(e) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Specifically, the court needed to determine what constituted legal incapacity in relation to the conduct of legal proceedings, and whether Murray was indeed such a person. This required an examination of Murray's ability to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings, and his capacity to manage his own legal affairs.

The court considered that for a person to be deemed legally incapacitated, they must be unable to comprehend the fundamental aspects of the litigation or manage their own legal matters. The evidence presented indicated that Murray was able to understand the proceedings and make informed decisions regarding his legal representation. Therefore, the court concluded that Murray was not legally incapacitated and rejected the application for an order to determine his incapacity. Consequently, the plaintiff was deemed capable of conducting the proceedings without the need for a tutor. The court's decision was based on Murray's demonstrated capacity to engage with the legal process and make decisions about his case.

Orders