Nguyen v State of South Australia

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Doyle and Bleby JJ considered an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision made by a primary judge. The underlying proceedings involved a claim in negligence brought by the applicant against the respondent for injuries sustained during a medical procedure. The dispute before the primary judge concerned the applicant's legal capacity to conduct these proceedings, with the respondent seeking an order appointing a litigation guardian or, alternatively, a stay of proceedings.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the applicant lacked legal capacity for the purposes of rule 2.1(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) and in ordering a stay of proceedings until a litigation guardian was appointed, pursuant to rule 23.8 of the Uniform Civil Rules. The Court was also required to determine whether to grant leave to appeal, considering whether the decision was attended by sufficient doubt, raised an issue of principle or general importance, and whether its refusal would cause substantial injustice to the applicant.

The Court reasoned that the primary judge had properly considered all the evidence, including medical reports assessing the applicant's intellectual and reasoning capacity, and the difficulties faced by the applicant's solicitor in obtaining counsel. The primary judge found that the applicant's impaired cognitive function prevented him from appreciating and weighing the forensic choices required in the proceedings, creating a real risk of disadvantage without a litigation guardian. The Full Court concluded that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal lacked any reasonably arguable basis to challenge these findings.

Consequently, the Full Court determined that the interests of justice did not favour granting leave to appeal, as there was no clear merit in the appeal, no issue of principle or general importance, and limited scope for substantial injustice. The Court granted an extension of time for the appeal but dismissed the application for leave to appeal, ordering costs in favour of the respondent.