Z v St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Ltd

The case before the court was an application brought by the parents of a young woman who was injured in a fall and had been declared brain-dead. The applicant sought orders that life support for their daughter be continued for a short period to allow for her transfer to a hospital in China. The application was brought in the court's parens patriae jurisdiction. The hospital, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Ltd, opposed the application. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The central legal issue was whether the court had the jurisdiction to make orders that would require the hospital to continue life support against the wishes of the medical professionals treating the patient. The court considered the scope of the court's parens patriae jurisdiction, including the principle that the court should not interfere with the clinical judgment of medical professionals except in the most compelling of circumstances. The court also considered whether the parents had standing to bring the application on behalf of their daughter.
The court found that it did have jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the parents, and that the parents did have standing to bring the application on behalf of their daughter. The court found that the parents had made out a case of sufficient cogency to warrant the court making the orders sought. The court noted the parents' evidence that their daughter had been a practising Buddhist for some years, and that they believed that Buddhist practices in China might assist in her recovery. The court also noted the evidence of the medical professionals that the patient's condition was terminal, and that continuing life support would not assist in her recovery. The court concluded that the compelling nature of the parents' evidence outweighed the professional medical evidence and the interests of the medical professionals in not being required to continue life support against their clinical judgment.

The final orders of the court were that life support for the patient be continued for a short period to allow for her transfer to a hospital in China. The court also ordered that the hospital provide all necessary assistance to facilitate the patient's transfer. The court emphasised that the orders were limited in scope and duration, and were not to be seen as a precedent for broader interference with the clinical judgment of medical professionals.