Zuecker v Bruggmann - [2016] QSC 53

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Zuecker v Bruggmann [2016] QSC 53

PARTIES:

NICOLETTA IRENE ZUECKER

(plaintiff)

v

RUTH BRUGGMANN

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 8751 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Review Hearing

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 March 2016

JUDGE:

Bond J

ORDER:

The proceeding be adjourned to a date to be fixed before Bond J for the determination of the following issues:

(a) whether the defendant is a person with impaired capacity at the present time so that any further step in the proceedings may only be taken with the leave of the court pursuant to UCPR 72;

(b) if such leave is necessary, whether it should be granted and, if so, on what terms, including in relation to the appointment of a litigation guardian for the defendant.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY AND AGAINST MENTALLY ILL AND OTHER PROTECTED PERSONS - where trial adjourned because the defendant was not capable of representing herself or giving instructions to an advocate - where evidence that the defendant presently not capable to respond to the current legal proceeding, attending to complex legal matter or giving instructions to advocate - whether necessary to consider if defendant is “a person with impaired capacity” for the purposes of UCPR 72 - whether necessary to consider if litigation guardian should be appointed

Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld), s 37
Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), sch 5

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 72, r 93

Plumley v Moroney [2014] QSC 3, cited

Queensland Law Reform Commission, A Review of Queensland’s Guardianship Laws, Report No 67 (2010)

COUNSEL:

P W Hackett for the plaintiff

P G Mylne (Sol) for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Rose Litigation Lawyers for the plaintiff

Turnbull Mylne for the defendant

This matter came on for trial before me on 2 November 2015. The nature of the trial was briefly canvassed by me in a ruling which I made on the question whether the defendant could be represented by a McKenzie friend. I will not rehearse what I then said.
On the second day, the defendant became ill. I canvassed the circumstances in which that occurred in my ruling on an adjournment application made on 4 November 2015. I will not rehearse what I then said.
On 4 November 2015, I acceded to the adjournment application and made the following orders and directions:
1.I will adjourn this trial until 10am tomorrow.
2.I direct that the defendant file and serve on the plaintiff, by 9.30am tomorrow, a report from a qualified medical practitioner identifying:
a) the defendant’s present symptomology as observed by that doctor;
b)whether in that doctor’s opinion the defendant is able to continue to represent herself in the current Supreme Court proceedings or, at least, to provide instructions to someone else who could appear as her advocate in those proceedings; and
c)if, in the doctor’s opinion, she is not presently able to do either of those two things, when…

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 Zuecker v Bruggmann

Details

AGLC: Zuecker v Bruggmann [2016] QSC 53
Case: [2016] QSC 53
Decision Date: 15 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zuecker v Bruggmann arose before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Zuecker, brought an action against Bruggmann, the defendant, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. The nature of the dispute is civil, with the plaintiff seeking relief in the form of damages or other remedies for alleged actions taken by the defendant. The matter was before Bond J, who had to determine whether the defendant's mental health condition affected her capacity to participate in the legal proceedings effectively.

The court was required to decide whether Bruggmann's current mental state rendered her unable to represent herself or give instructions to an advocate, as per the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). Specifically, the court needed to consider whether Bruggmann was a "person with impaired capacity" under UCPR 72, which would necessitate the appointment of a litigation guardian to assist her in the proceedings. The court also had to weigh the evidence presented regarding Bruggmann's mental health and its impact on her ability to engage with the legal process.

Bond J, in adjudicating on these issues, took into account the evidence provided, which suggested that Bruggmann was not capable of responding to the legal proceedings, attending to complex legal matters, or giving instructions to an advocate. The court referenced previous cases, such as Plumley v Moroney, and reports from the Queensland Law Reform Commission, to guide its decision-making. Ultimately, the court found it necessary to adjourn the proceeding to allow for further investigation into Bruggmann's capacity and the potential need for a litigation guardian. The decision hinged on whether Bruggmann's mental health condition met the threshold for being considered a person with impaired capacity under the applicable rules.

The final orders of the court were to adjourn the proceeding to a date to be fixed, for the determination of two issues: (a) whether Bruggmann is a person with impaired capacity at the present time, and (b) if such leave is necessary, whether it should be granted and, if so, on what terms, including in relation to the appointment of a litigation guardian for the defendant. This decision ensures that the court can adequately protect Bruggmann's rights while also ensuring that the legal process can proceed in an appropriate manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

The proceeding be adjourned to a date to be fixed before Bond J for the determination of the following issues:

(a) whether the defendant is a person with impaired capacity at the present time so that any further step in the proceedings may only be taken with the leave of the court pursuant to UCPR 72;

(b) if such leave is necessary, whether it should be granted and, if so, on what terms, including in relation to the appointment of a litigation guardian for the defendant.

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:	Zuecker v Bruggmann [2016] QSC 53
PARTIES:	NICOLETTA IRENE ZUECKER (plaintiff) v RUTH BRUGGMANN (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 8751 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Review Hearing
DELIVERED ON:	15 March 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 March 2016
JUDGE:	Bond J
ORDER:	The proceeding be adjourned to a date to be fixed before Bond J for the determination of the following issues: (a) whether the defendant is a person with impaired capacity at the present time so that any further step in the proceedings may only be taken with the leave of the court pursuant to UCPR 72; (b) if such leave is necessary, whether it should be granted and, if so, on what terms, including in relation to the appointment of a litigation guardian for the defendant.
CATCHWORDS:	MENTAL HEALTH - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY AND AGAINST MENTALLY ILL AND OTHER PROTECTED PERSONS - where trial adjourned because the defendant was not capable of representing herself or giving instructions to an advocate - where evidence that the defendant presently not capable to respond to the current legal proceeding, attending to complex legal matter or giving instructions to advocate - whether necessary to consider if defendant is “a person with impaired capacity” for the purposes of UCPR 72 - whether necessary to consider if litigation guardian should be appointed Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld), s 37 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), sch 5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 72, r 93 Plumley v Moroney [2014] QSC 3, cited Queensland Law Reform Commission, A Review of Queensland’s Guardianship Laws, Report No 67 (2010)
COUNSEL:	P W Hackett for the plaintiff P G Mylne (Sol) for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Rose Litigation Lawyers for the plaintiff Turnbull Mylne for the defendant