Williams v Nielssen and Ors [2019] NSWSC 1133

Williams v Nielssen and Ors [2019] NSWSC 1133

The Court refused to make interlocutory or interim orders (such as immediate release) because the application was ex parte, with only one side of the history before the court and contradictory factual assertions. Urgent directions were made to facilitate a proper hearing with documentation and party participation at the earliest opportunity.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jason (Jay) Williams; First Defendant: Dr Olav Nielssen; Second Defendant: Prince of Wales Hospital; Third Defendant: The Minister for Health; Fourth Defendant: The State of New South Wales; Fifth Defendant: New South Wales Bar Association
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Ex Parte Application for Habeas Corpus / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Urgent procedural orders granted; substantive interlocutory relief refused
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Urgent Applications, Mental Health Act Involuntary Patient, Ex Parte Applications, Court Directions
Civil Law Mental Health Law Court Procedure Habeas Corpus Urgent Applications Mental Health Act Involuntary Patient Ex Parte Applications Court Directions

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason (Jay) Williams

Plaintiff

Dr Olav Nielssen

First Defendant

Prince of Wales Hospital

Second Defendant

The Minister for Health

Third Defendant

The State of New South Wales

Fourth Defendant

New South Wales Bar Association

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Urgent Ex Parte Application for Habeas Corpus / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for habeas corpus should be heard ex parte
  2. 2 Appropriateness of urgent directions to facilitate the hearing
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory or interim orders should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to make interlocutory or interim orders (such as immediate release) because the application was ex parte, with only one side of the history before the court and contradictory factual assertions. Urgent directions were made to facilitate a proper hearing with documentation and party participation at the earliest opportunity.

Court Disposition

Urgent procedural orders granted; substantive interlocutory relief refused

Orders

  • The summons and supporting evidence be filed and served by Tuesday 3 September 2019.
  • The matter is listed before the Registrar on Wednesday 4 September 2019 for referral to the Duty Judge.