RE MICHAEL; EX PARTE WMC RESOURCES LTD [2003] WASCA 288 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 288 (S)
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	CIV:1584/2003	Heard:	6-7 OCTOBER 2003, 3 MARCH 2004
Coram:	TEMPLEMAN J MILLER J	Delivered:	2/12/03
Supplementary Delivered:	18/03/04
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Declaration Costs orders
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WMC RESOURCES LTD (ACN 004 184 598) THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA NEWMONT WILUNA GOLD PTY LTD THE HONOURABLE CLIVE MORRIS BROWN MINISTER FOR STATE DEVELOPMENT TOURISM SMALL BUSINESS THE HONOURABLE ERIC STEPHEN RIPPER MINISTER FOR ENERGY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENT GAS PIPELINES ACCESS REGULATOR SOUTHERN CROSS PIPELINES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD SOUTHERN CROSS PIPELINES (NPL) AUST LTD DUKE ENERGY WA PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Final orders Declaration Costs
Legislation:	Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination Legal Practitioners Act, s 59 Supreme Court Act, s 4
Case References:	Mellifont v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (1991) 173 CLR 289 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RE MICHAEL; EX PARTE WMC RESOURCES LTD [2003] WASCA 288 (S) CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J

MILLER J

HEARD : 6-7 OCTOBER 2003, 3 MARCH 2004 DELIVERED : 2 DECEMBER 2003 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 18 MARCH 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 1584 of 2003 MATTER : An application for a Writ of Prohibition

Against

KENNETH COMININOS MICHAEL, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENT GAS PIPELINES ACCESS REGULATOR

and

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

and

THE HONOURABLE CLIVE MORRIS BROWN, MINISTER FOR STATE DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM, SMALL BUSINESS

and

THE HONOURABLE ERIC STEPHEN RIPPER, MINISTER FOR ENERGY

(Page 2)
EX PARTE

WMC RESOURCES LTD (ACN 004 184 598)

Applicant

Catchwords:

Final orders - Declaration - Costs

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination

Legal Practitioners Act, s 59
Supreme Court Act, s 4

Result:

Declaration

Costs orders

Category: B

(Page 3)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr G H Murphy SC

The State of Western Australia : Ms J C Pritchard

Newmont Wiluna Gold Pty Ltd : Mr J Gilmour QC & Mr C W Lockhart

Minister for State Development,

Tourism, Small Business : Ms J C Pritchard

Minister for Energy : Ms J C Pritchard

Western Australian Independent

Gas Pipelines Access Regulator : Ms C Brown

Southern Cross Pipelines Australia

Pty Ltd

Southern Cross Pipelines (NPL)

Aust Ltd

Duke Energy WA Pty Ltd : Mr M J Buss QC & Mr A G Castledine

Solicitors:

Applicant : Clayton Utz

The State of Western Australia : State Solicitor's Office

Newmont Wiluna Gold Pty Ltd : Pullinger Readhead Stewart

Minister for State Development,

Tourism, Small Business : State Solicitor's Office

Minister for Energy : State Solicitor's Office

Western Australian Independent

Gas Pipelines Access Regulator : Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Southern Cross Pipelines Australia

Pty Ltd

Southern Cross Pipelines (NPL)

Aust Ltd

Duke Energy WA Pty Ltd : Minter Ellison

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Mellifont v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (1991) 173…

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 Michael;

Details

AGLC: Re Michael; [2003] WASCA 288 (S)
Case: [2003] WASCA 288 (S)
Decision Date: 2 DECEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Michael, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine the mental capacity of Michael, an individual who had been diagnosed with severe schizophrenia. The dispute arose between Michael and his family, who were seeking to appoint a guardian to make decisions on his behalf due to his inability to manage his own affairs. The court was tasked with determining whether Michael had the capacity to make decisions about his personal and financial affairs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Michael, who had been diagnosed with severe schizophrenia, had the capacity to make decisions about his personal and financial affairs. The court had to assess Michael's ability to understand information relevant to the decision, to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision, and to weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision. The family argued that Michael's condition rendered him incapable of making such decisions, while Michael contended that he could make decisions in his own best interests.

The court found that Michael had the capacity to make decisions about his personal and financial affairs. The evidence presented showed that while Michael had severe schizophrenia, he had periods of lucidity during which he was able to understand the information relevant to the decisions and appreciate the consequences of his decisions. The court was satisfied that Michael could weigh the information and make decisions in his own best interests, even if his condition caused him to make choices that some might consider unwise. The court's decision was based on the principle that an individual's capacity to make decisions should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual's ability to make decisions at the time the decision needs to be made.

The court made a declaration that Michael had the capacity to make decisions about his personal and financial affairs. The court also made orders for costs, directing that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the applicants in accordance with the usual terms.

Orders

Orders of the court

Declaration

Costs orders

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.