Legal Research
Cases
Re Erdogan's Application: Erdogan v Ekici

Re Erdogan's Application: Erdogan v Ekici

Case [2012] VSC 256 27 June 2012

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. S CI 2004 7137

BETWEEN:

CEMAL ERDOGAN	Plaintiff
and
NECATI EKICI	Defendant
AND: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY CEMAL ERDOGAN that funds in court currently held by, and assets controlled by, the Senior Master on behalf of the plaintiff, pursuant to the court’s order dated 11 November 2004, be paid out or transferred to the plaintiff.

---

JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 MAY 2012
DATE OF RULING:	27 JUNE 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	RE ERDOGAN’S APPLICATION: ERDOGAN v EKICI
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 256

---

Capacity – funds in court – person under disability – plaintiff suffered brain injury in vehicle accident in 1999 - compensation paid into court in 2004 – application in 2010 to Senior Master for funds in court to be released to the applicant – whether applicant no longer a person under disability - whether capacity to manage own affairs – test to be applied – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 rr 77.01, 79.02; Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 s 66.

Practice and Procedure – funds in court – application for return of funds and property – appeal from associate justice – de novo rehearing – proper procedure considered – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 rr 1.15, 77.01, 77.06; Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 47(1).

Practice and Procedure – inherent jurisdiction – parens patriae - application for return of funds and property in court – whether capacity to manage own affairs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Dinning (Solicitor)	Baker & Armstrong
Amicus Curae	Mr T West (Solicitor)	Solicitor to the Senior Master’s (Funds In Court) Office

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

The issue for determination............................................................................................................. 2

Accident compensation proceeding................................................................................................ 2

The Senior Master’s administration of Mr Erdogan’s funds from 2004.................................. 3

Current financial position................................................................................................................ 4

Applications for payment out.......................................................................................................... 5

Earlier applications....................................................................................................................... 5
Procedure on the primary applications..................................................................................... 8
Procedure on the appeal............................................................................................................ 14

The applicable principles............................................................................................................... 15

Some general considerations..................................................................................................... 15
Onus of Proof............................................................................................................................... 20
Standard of Proof........................................................................................................................ 21
Test for incapacity....................................................................................................................... 21

PY v RJS.................................................................................................................................. 22
Re MacGregor.......................................................................................................................... 23
Subsequent cases in New South Wales..................................................................................... 24
Western Australia.................................................................................................................... 25
The test to be applied................................................................................................................. 26
Evaluating capacity.................................................................................................................. 27
Affairs to be managed............................................................................................................... 29

Evidence on the application........................................................................................................... 30

Mr Erdogan’s claim of improved capacity.............................................................................. 30
Evidence of Ms Selvi – Consultant Psychologist................................................................... 31

The neuropsychological evidence................................................................................................ 34

Dr John Lloyd.............................................................................................................................. 34
Dr Anson....................................................................................................................................... 35
Associate Professor Yucel.......................................................................................................... 36
Matters of agreement.................................................................................................................. 37
Evidence of Dr Anson’s assessment in 2008........................................................................... 38
Evidence of Professor Yucel’s assessments in 2010 and 2012.............................................. 39
Matters arising during their concurrent evidence................................................................. 42

Evidence of Cemal Erdogan........................................................................................................... 48

Submissions...................................................................................................................................... 49

For Mr Erdogan........................................................................................................................... 49
For the SMO................................................................................................................................. 50

Resolution of the application......................................................................................................... 51

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

When on 11 November 2004 this court approved the settlement of Cemal Erdogan’s damages action, it ordered that the settlement sum be…

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 Re Erdogan's Application: Erdogan v Ekici

Details

AGLC: Re Erdogan's Application: Erdogan v Ekici [2012] VSC 256
Case: [2012] VSC 256
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Erdogan, the applicant, and Ekici, the administrator of the estate of the plaintiff, who suffered a brain injury in a 1999 vehicle accident. The dispute was about the release of funds in court to the applicant, which were compensation paid in 2004. In 2010, the applicant applied to a Senior Master for the release of the funds, arguing that he no longer had a disability and had the capacity to manage his own affairs. The court was required to decide whether the applicant had the necessary capacity to manage his own affairs and whether the test for determining this capacity was correctly applied.

The court considered the relevant legal principles, including the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005. The court noted that the test for determining capacity is whether the person can understand and retain information relevant to the decision, use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision, communicate the decision, and understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences of not making the decision. The court also considered the inherent jurisdiction of the court to act as a parent, and whether this jurisdiction could be used to release the funds to the applicant.

The court found that the applicant had the capacity to manage his own affairs and that the Senior Master had correctly applied the test for determining capacity. The court also found that the proper procedure for the application had been followed, and that there was no need for a de novo rehearing. The court rejected the appeal and made orders for the release of the funds to the applicant. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the specific facts of the case and that each case must be decided on its own merits.

Orders