Re Leith Dorene Patteson

Case [2016] QSC 104


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Leith Dorene Patteson [2016] QSC 104

PARTIES:

RE LEITH DORENE PATTESON
(applicant)

FILE NO:

BS 4099 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

21 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 April 2016

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

The court orders that:

1.     The testes and any spermatozoa of the deceased, Tony Brian Deane, (“the Removed Tissue”) be removed;

2.     The Removed Tissue be provided to an IVF organization nominated by the applicant, Leith Dorene Patteson;

3.     Any blood tests advised by the IVF organization be carried out; and

4.     The Removed Tissue be stored pending a future application to the Supreme Court for the use of the Removed Tissue.

The court directs that this Order be served by telephone call and email from the applicant’s solicitors to:

1.     The IVF organisation;

2.     The facility at which the body of the deceased is currently being stored; and

3.     The family of the deceased, through their solicitors, Munro Legal, Ground Floor, 154 Hume Street, Toowoomba, 07 4659 9958, bill@munrolegal.com.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where the applicant made an urgent application seeking an order authorising the removal and storage of the testes and any spermatozoa from her recently deceased partner – whether such an order should be made

Transplantation and Anatomy Act 1979 (Qld), s 24

Baker v State of Queensland [2003] QSC 2
KJR v Attorney-General for Queensland [2008] QSC 325
Re Denman [2004] 2 Qd R 595
Re Floyd [2011] QSC 218
Re Gray [2001] 1 Qd R 35

COUNSEL:

K McMillan for the applicant
K Parrot for the amicus curiae

SOLICITORS:

Aden Lawyers for the applicant

Crown Law for the amicus curiae

[1]HIS HONOUR:   The applicant before the court is Leith Doreen Patteson.  Her fiancé, Tony Brian Deane, died late last night when the life support machine to which he was connected at the Toowoomba Base Hospital was disconnected.  Ms Patterson has applied to the Court for orders authorising the removal of the testes and any spermatozoa from Mr Deane’s body, the provision of what is removed to an IVF organisation nominated by her, the carrying out of any blood tests advised by the IVF organisation and the storage of the testes and any spermatozoa pending a future application to this court for their use.

[2]Ms Patteson is represented on this application by Ms McMillan QC.  Mr Parrott, who has considerable experience in this area, appears as amicus curiae and Mr Munro, who represents Mr Deane’s family but, in particular, Mr Deane’s parents, appears by telephone.

[3]Mr Parrott does not oppose the making of the orders sought and has very properly drawn to the court’s attention the doubts previously expressed as to whether the court may ultimately entertain an application such as this. See: Re Gray [2001] 1 Qd R 35; Baker v State of Queensland [2003] QSC 2.

[4]However,…

Continue reading Re Leith Dorene Patteson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Leith Dorene Patteson [2016] QSC 104
Case
[2016] QSC 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Leith Dorene Patteson, made an urgent application in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking an order to authorise the removal and storage of the testes and any spermatozoa from her recently deceased partner, Tony Brian Deane. The matter was heard by Justice Byrne who was required to determine whether such an order should be made.

The legal issues before the court were primarily centred around the applicant's right to seek the preservation of her deceased partner's sperm and whether such an action was within the court's jurisdiction. The court had to balance the applicant's rights and desires against the rights of the deceased's family, who had not consented to the removal and storage of the testes. Furthermore, the court considered the ethical and medical implications of the proposed action.

Justice Byrne found that the applicant had established a sufficient connection to Queensland to grant the requested order. The court recognised the applicant's right to make decisions regarding the use of her deceased partner's sperm, provided that such decisions were in accordance with the law and did not unduly infringe upon the rights of others. The court also considered the medical evidence provided, which indicated that the testes could be removed and stored without compromising the integrity of the deceased's body for a funeral. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that it was appropriate to grant the order sought by the applicant.

Accordingly, the court made an order that the testes and any spermatozoa of the deceased be removed, provided to an IVF organisation nominated by the applicant, and stored pending a future application to the Supreme Court for the use of the removed tissue. The court also directed that this order be served by telephone call and email to relevant parties, including the IVF organisation, the facility at which the deceased's body was stored, and the deceased's family through their solicitors.

Orders

Orders of the court

The court orders that:

1. The testes and any spermatozoa of the deceased, Tony Brian Deane, (“the Removed Tissue”) be removed;

2. The Removed Tissue be provided to an IVF organization nominated by the applicant, Leith Dorene Patteson;

3. Any blood tests advised by the IVF organization be carried out; and

4. The Removed Tissue be stored pending a future application to the Supreme Court for the use of the Removed Tissue.

The court directs that this Order be served by telephone call and email from the applicant’s solicitors to:

1. The IVF organisation;

2. The facility at which the body of the deceased is currently being stored; and

3. The family of the deceased, through their solicitors, Munro Legal, Ground Floor, 154 Hume Street, Toowoomba, 07 4659 9958, bill@munrolegal.com.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.