A v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2012] NSWSC 293

A v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2012] NSWSC 293

The Court's jurisdiction was enlivened under s 163(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 2007, but the appeal was a new hearing so alleged administrative law errors by the Tribunal were immaterial. The applicant adduced no evidence enabling the Court to determine whether consent under s 162 should be given for publication of his name, including evidence relevant to his psychiatric health and the proposed publication. The summons therefore had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Refusal or Failure by the Mental Health Review Tribunal to Determine an Application for Consent Under S 162 of the Mental Health Act 2007 to Publish the Applicant's Own Name / Supreme Court Determination of Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['publication of Names' 'mental Health Review Tribunal Consent' 'forensic Patient' 'appeal by Way of New Hearing' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias']
['mental Health Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['publication of Names' 'mental Health Review Tribunal Consent' 'forensic Patient' 'appeal by Way of New Hearing' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning Refusal or Failure by the Mental Health Review Tribunal to Determine an Application for Consent Under S 162 of the Mental Health Act 2007 to Publish the Applicant's Own Name / Supreme Court Determination of Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summons should be treated as an appeal under s 163 of the Mental Health Act 2007 rather than under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 or s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.' 'Whether alleged procedural unfairness, apprehended bias or error of law by the Tribunal mattered on an appeal by way of new hearing.' 'Whether the Court should grant consent under s 162 of the Mental Health Act 2007 for the applicant to publish or broadcast his own name.' 'Whether the applicant provided evidence sufficient to enable determination of the substantive request for consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court's jurisdiction was enlivened under s 163(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 2007, but the appeal was a new hearing so alleged administrative law errors by the Tribunal were immaterial. The applicant adduced no evidence enabling the Court to determine whether consent under s 162 should be given for publication of his name, including evidence relevant to his psychiatric health and the proposed publication. The summons therefore had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed.' 'Each party to pay its own costs.']