HUNTER AREA HEALTH SERVICE & ANOR v PRESLAND [2005] NSWCA 33

HUNTER AREA HEALTH SERVICE & ANOR v PRESLAND [2005] NSWCA 33

The majority of the Court of Appeal (Sheller JA, Santow JA) held that, while the psychiatrist and hospital owed a general duty of care to the respondent as a patient, this duty did not extend to compensating him for non-physical harm (notably deprivation of liberty, mental anguish) suffered as a consequence of his acquittal on grounds of mental illness and subsequent lawful detention for homicide committed after a negligent release. The statutory mental health scheme focused on protection from serious physical harm, not legal consequences flowing from a patient’s own unlawful acts, even if lacking criminal culpability. The chain of causation was broken by the respondent's unlawful act,...

Parties
First Appellant: Hunter Area Health Service; Second Appellant: Jacob Nazarian; Respondent: Kevin William Presland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal – Decision After Hearing Full Argument and Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; verdict and judgment for plaintiff set aside; judgment entered for defendants; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of the trial and appeal, but entitled to a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if so entitled.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Psychiatric Patients, Scope of Statutory Powers, Causation, Public Policy, Ex Turpi Causa, Damages
Tort Law Medical Negligence Mental Health Law Duty of Care Psychiatric Patients Scope of Statutory Powers Causation Public Policy +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hunter Area Health Service

First Appellant

Jacob Nazarian

Second Appellant

Kevin William Presland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal – Decision After Hearing Full Argument and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Nature and scope of the duty of care owed by a psychiatric hospital and psychiatrist to a patient under statutory mental health powers and at common law
  2. 2 Whether a hospital/psychiatrist can be liable in negligence for damages suffered by a mentally ill patient who, after negligent release, committed homicide, was acquitted on grounds of mental illness, and was detained as a forensic patient
  3. 3 Whether the principles of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, public policy, or causation preclude the plaintiff’s claim

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the Court of Appeal (Sheller JA, Santow JA) held that, while the psychiatrist and hospital owed a general duty of care to the respondent as a patient, this duty did not extend to compensating him for non-physical harm (notably deprivation of liberty, mental anguish) suffered as a consequence of his acquittal on grounds of mental illness and subsequent lawful detention for homicide committed after a negligent release. The statutory mental health scheme focused on protection from serious physical harm, not legal consequences flowing from a patient’s own unlawful acts, even if lacking criminal culpability. The chain of causation was broken by the respondent's unlawful act,...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; verdict and judgment for plaintiff set aside; judgment entered for defendants; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of the trial and appeal, but entitled to a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if so entitled.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Set aside the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff