The Hospital v T - [2015] QSC 185

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Hospital v T and Anor [2015] QSC 185

PARTIES:

The Hospital

(applicant)

v
T

(first respondent)

and

S

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 4778 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

12 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 June 2015

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

1.   The minor referred to in this application not be referred to by name but by the reference “J”.

2.   The identity of J be supressed such that the full name of the child, the child’s family members and their occupations, the hospital, the child’s medical practitioners, the child’s school, the name of the parents’ lawyers, and any other fact or matter that may identify the child shall not be published in any way, and only anonymised Reasons for Judgment and Orders (with cover-sheets excluding the parties’ real names) shall be released by the Court to non-parties without further Order of a Judge, it being noted that each party shall be handed one full copy of these Orders with the relevant details included, for provision to treating medical practitioners and to enable their execution.

3.   Subject to any contrary order of a Judge, the Court file is not available for search by any person who is not a party to the proceeding or a party’s legal representative in the proceeding.

4.   The affidavit and exhibits and written submissions and correspondence with the court by the parties upon which this application was based be placed in a sealed envelope and only be opened by order of a Judge.

5.   A declaration is made in the following terms:

The Hospital and medical practitioners and nurses acting on its behalf providing medical services to J are authorised to administer to J, blood and/or blood products as may, in their medical judgement, be desirable or necessary according to good medical practice during the planned liver transplant procedure and/or the post-operative period.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO CARE AND PROTECTION – POWERS RELATING TO MEDICAL TREATMENT – proceedings in parens patriae jurisdiction of court – where members of the press had already accessed the court file and significant media attention had been generated – whether the application should be heard in closed court

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO CARE AND PROTECTION – POWERS RELATING TO MEDICAL TREATMENT – proceedings in parens patriae jurisdiction of court – where J was a seven and a-half year old with a significant liver disease which required a liver transplant in the next two to three years – where death would be inevitable failing such a transplant – where a transplant would likely cure J’s liver disease and reverse the significant symptoms from which he already suffered and significantly improve his quality of life – where J’s parents…

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 The Hospital v T

Details

AGLC: The Hospital v T [2015] QSC 185
Case: [2015] QSC 185
Decision Date: 12 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Hospital sought an order authorising medical treatment of a seven and a-half year old child, J, against the wishes of his parents, who objected on religious grounds to any blood transfusion. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia in the parens patriae jurisdiction. The court was required to decide whether the application should be heard in a closed court due to media attention, and whether a declaration should be made authorising the hospital to administer blood and/or blood products to J during a planned liver transplant procedure and/or the post-operative period.

The court found that the matter should be heard in a closed court due to the significant media attention that had already been generated. The court noted that the case involved complex medical issues, the welfare of a child, and the rights of the parents to make decisions about their child's medical treatment. The court also found that the proposed declaration should be made in the terms submitted by the respondents to ensure that every effort was made to minimise blood and blood product administration. The court noted that J's parents had indicated they would obey a court order, and that a transplant would likely cure J’s liver disease and reverse the significant symptoms from which he already suffered and significantly improve his quality of life.

The court made several orders to protect the identity of J and his family, and to ensure that the court file was not accessible to the media or the public. The court also made an order authorising the hospital to administer blood and/or blood products to J during the planned liver transplant procedure and/or the post-operative period. The court noted that the declaration was limited to the specific circumstances of this case, and that it did not create a general precedent for similar cases.

The court made orders to protect the identity of J and his family, and to ensure that the court file was not accessible to the media or the public. The court also made an order authorising the hospital to administer blood and/or blood products to J during the planned liver transplant procedure and/or the post-operative period. The court noted that the declaration was limited to the specific circumstances of this case, and that it did not create a general precedent for similar cases. The court also made orders to ensure that the affidavit and exhibits and written submissions and correspondence with the court by the parties upon which this application was based be placed in a sealed envelope and only be opened by order of a Judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The minor referred to in this application not be referred to by name but by the reference “J”.

2. The identity of J be supressed such that the full name of the child, the child’s family members and their occupations, the hospital, the child’s medical practitioners, the child’s school, the name of the parents’ lawyers, and any other fact or matter that may identify the child shall not be published in any way, and only anonymised Reasons for Judgment and Orders (with cover-sheets excluding the parties’ real names) shall be released by the Court to non-parties without further Order of a Judge, it being noted that each party shall be handed one full copy of these Orders with the relevant details included, for provision to treating medical practitioners and to enable their execution.

3. Subject to any contrary order of a Judge, the Court file is not available for search by any person who is not a party to the proceeding or a party’s legal representative in the proceeding.

4. The affidavit and exhibits and written submissions and correspondence with the court by the parties upon which this application was based be placed in a sealed envelope and only be opened by order of a Judge.

5. A declaration is made in the following terms:

The Hospital and medical practitioners and nurses acting on its behalf providing medical services to J are authorised to administer to J, blood and/or blood products as may, in their medical judgement, be desirable or necessary according to good medical practice during the planned liver transplant procedure and/or the post-operative period.

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.

CITATION:	The Hospital v T and Anor [2015] QSC 185
PARTIES:	The Hospital (applicant) v T (first respondent) and S (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 4778 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	12 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 June 2015
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	1. The minor referred to in this application not be referred to by name but by the reference “J”. 2. The identity of J be supressed such that the full name of the child, the child’s family members and their occupations, the hospital, the child’s medical practitioners, the child’s school, the name of the parents’ lawyers, and any other fact or matter that may identify the child shall not be published in any way, and only anonymised Reasons for Judgment and Orders (with cover-sheets excluding the parties’ real names) shall be released by the Court to non-parties without further Order of a Judge, it being noted that each party shall be handed one full copy of these Orders with the relevant details included, for provision to treating medical practitioners and to enable their execution. 3. Subject to any contrary order of a Judge, the Court file is not available for search by any person who is not a party to the proceeding or a party’s legal representative in the proceeding. 4. The affidavit and exhibits and written submissions and correspondence with the court by the parties upon which this application was based be placed in a sealed envelope and only be opened by order of a Judge. 5. A declaration is made in the following terms: The Hospital and medical practitioners and nurses acting on its behalf providing medical services to J are authorised to administer to J, blood and/or blood products as may, in their medical judgement, be desirable or necessary according to good medical practice during the planned liver transplant procedure and/or the post-operative period.
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO CARE AND PROTECTION – POWERS RELATING TO MEDICAL TREATMENT – proceedings in parens patriae jurisdiction of court – where members of the press had already accessed the court file and significant media attention had been generated – whether the application should be heard in closed court FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO CARE AND PROTECTION – POWERS RELATING TO MEDICAL TREATMENT – proceedings in parens patriae jurisdiction of court – where J was a seven and a-half year old with a significant liver disease which required a liver transplant in the next two to three years – where death would be inevitable failing such a transplant – where a transplant would likely cure J’s liver disease and reverse the significant symptoms from which he already suffered and significantly improve his quality of life – where J’s parents…