• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The background was Ms Blessed's hospital admission after a seizure on 4 September 2020. She was taken by ambulance to Westmead Hospital, where she was found to be a mentally ill person under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW), and was involuntarily admitted and treated. The Court noted that there appeared to be a question about whether and when that finding had been made ([3]). Her medical records indicated that a lumbar puncture was performed on 5 September 2020. Her amended statement of claim alleged that she was detained at Westmead for a week and then at Cumberland Hospital for a further week ([3]-[4]).

The pleading was in bullet-point form. Among other things, it alleged that Ms Blessed declined a lumbar puncture, was then “sectioned” and held against her will, and suffered ongoing anxiety and trauma ([5]-[6]). She claimed $20 million, half attributed to each hospital, but did not provide particulars explaining how she calculated those figures ([7]). These were allegations in the pleading, not findings made by the Court of Appeal.

In April 2024, the respondent sought dismissal of the proceeding under several provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), alternatively an order striking out the amended statement of claim ([8]). Walton J did not grant the requested dismissal orders. Instead, he struck out the amended statement of claim and ordered that the matter be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance ([1], [9], [11]). The Court of Appeal later emphasised that this did not amount to dismissing the underlying claim ([17]).

Ms Blessed sought leave to appeal against that procedural decision. Her draft grounds were: “This is unfair and unjust” and “This is a violation of Human Rights” ([13]). The Court refused leave with costs. It did not determine whether the respondent's application was out of time or whether the proceeding should be permanently stayed, because its principal conclusion made it unnecessary to address the alternative stay request ([16], [18]).

Why the court decided this way

The first procedural step was identifying that leave was necessary. The decision under challenge was interlocutory and concerned practice and procedure. Section 101(2)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) therefore required leave to appeal ([14]).

The Court described the general leave threshold by reference to McEvoy v Wagglens Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 104. It said that leave generally requires an issue of principle, a question of public importance or a reasonably clear injustice going beyond something merely arguable ([15]). For discretionary decisions, including decisions about practice or procedure, the Court also noted the restraint associated with House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499, drawing on PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48 ([15]). These principles framed the application, but the Court's decisive reasoning was more direct than a detailed examination of each proposed ground.

At paragraph [17], the Court identified what it considered to be Ms Blessed's misunderstanding. Her Grounds of Appeal Notes asserted that the primary judge had decided to dismiss her claim as frivolous and had used procedural rules to dismiss a serious claim. The Court said that was not what the primary judge had done. Rather, he had struck out the amended statement of claim because it failed to plead material facts supporting the claim, referring to Banque Commerciale SA, En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Limited (1990) 169 CLR 279.

The distinction mattered. A decision striking out a pleading for insufficiency is not, on the account given in this judgment, the same decision as dismissing the underlying claim. The Court read the primary judge's orders as contemplating a further opportunity for Ms Blessed to plead the claim and as including an order designed to assist her to do so properly ([17]). That reading was consistent with the primary judge's stated reasons, which recognised deficiencies in the pleading but also observed that the applicant had disclosed a basis for her claim and that she was self-represented ([11]).

The Court did not make findings about whether the detention or treatment was lawful, whether the pleaded events established a tort, or whether Ms Blessed suffered the claimed harm. It also did not assess the amount claimed. Those matters belonged to the underlying proceeding and were not resolved by this leave decision. The judgment's focus was the procedural order and the grounds advanced to challenge it.

Having concluded that the proposed appeal proceeded on a mistaken account of the primary judge's orders, the Court said: “For those reasons alone, leave to appeal must be refused with costs” ([18]). It therefore did not decide the respondent's alternative request for a permanent stay. Although the respondent also objected that the leave application was out of time and no extension or explanation had been provided, the Court did not give a determination of that objection in its reasons ([16]-[18]).

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not announce a new rule about pleadings or appellate leave. Instead, it applies established procedural principles to the particular orders and proposed grounds before it.

As to the position before this decision, the Court restated that an applicant seeking leave from an interlocutory procedural decision must meet the leave threshold. The cited formulation requires an issue of principle, a question of public importance or a reasonably clear injustice beyond something merely arguable ([14]-[15]). It also recognises added restraint for discretionary decisions about practice and procedure, drawing on House v R and the authorities identified through McEvoy and PPK Willoughby ([15]).

On pleadings, the Court relied on Banque Commerciale for the proposition that material facts supporting a claim must be pleaded ([17]). In this case, the primary judge had characterised the amended statement of claim as inadequate and not compliant with the procedural requirements, while deciding to strike it out rather than dismiss the proceeding ([11], [17]). The Court of Appeal's reasoning depended on accurately understanding that distinction, not on setting out a new comprehensive test for pleading sufficiency.

The effect of the decision after 12 August 2025 is confined to this application: leave was refused with costs. The judgment does not state that a further pleading was filed, that the merits were subsequently determined, or that the underlying claim was dismissed. It records orders which contemplated a further opportunity to plead and referral for legal assistance, but it does not report what happened afterwards ([17]-[19]).

Nor does the judgment determine how the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) applied to Ms Blessed's admission or treatment. It notes the apparent question about whether and when she was found to be a mentally ill person, and records the primary judge's concern about the material relating to that assessment ([3], [10]). Those observations are background to the underlying dispute, not a Court of Appeal ruling on the Act's application.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [14], the Court said the decision was “an interlocutory one concerning a matter of practice and procedure” and that leave was required under s 101(2)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). In plain English, Ms Blessed could not appeal this procedural decision as of right; she first had to obtain permission.

At [15], the Court described the general leave threshold as requiring an issue of principle, a public-importance question, or reasonably clear injustice that went beyond something merely arguable. It added that discretionary decisions about procedure receive additional appellate restraint. In plain English, disagreement with a procedural decision is not, by itself, enough to secure permission to appeal. The judgment does not say that the Court conducted a separate, extensive analysis of every threshold component. Its reasons identify the mistaken understanding of the orders as sufficient.

The central passage is [17]: “The primary judge did not, however, dismiss the applicant’s claim. Rather, he quite properly struck out the amended statement of claim on the basis that it failed to plead material facts which support the claim.” In plain English, the Court considered that the decision affected the form and adequacy of the pleading, rather than finally disposing of the underlying claim.

The Court continued that the primary judge's orders “contemplated that the applicant would be given a further opportunity to plead her claim and included an order designed to assist her to do so properly” ([17]). This explains why describing the result as dismissal was important to the appeal grounds. The Court understood the orders as leaving an opportunity for the claim to be put in a procedurally adequate form.

Finally, at [18], the Court said: “For those reasons alone, leave to appeal must be refused with costs.” In plain English, it regarded the misunderstanding as enough to dispose of the leave application. It did not need to decide the respondent's alternative request for a permanent stay.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory ruling about pleadings or another matter of practice and procedure. In such a setting, the applicant must first confront the requirement for leave under s 101(2)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), as described at [14]. The judgment also signals that an appeal ground framed in general terms, such as unfairness, needs to be considered against the actual orders and the applicable leave threshold ([13]-[15]).

A particularly relevant feature is a mismatch between the order made and the way an applicant describes it. Here, the proposed grounds treated the claim as having been dismissed, whereas the Court understood the order to strike out the amended statement of claim and contemplate a further opportunity to plead ([17]). The case therefore illustrates the importance, in leave proceedings, of identifying precisely what the first-instance court decided.

The pleading context is also relevant where a statement of claim does not set out material facts said to support the cause of action. The Court described that as the basis for the strike-out order and referred to Banque Commerciale ([17]). The judgment does not provide a general checklist of particulars required in every claim, nor does it decide what pleading would have been sufficient in Ms Blessed's case.

The facts involving involuntary admission, a lumbar puncture and alleged continuing harm explain the underlying dispute, but they do not establish a precedent on the lawfulness of hospital detention or treatment. The Court of Appeal did not decide those substantive questions. A reader should therefore avoid treating this judgment as authority resolving whether particular treatment or detention under the Mental Health Act was lawful.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment itself contains no account of decisions delivered after Blessed v Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWCA 183, and the supplied text provides no later-court treatment. It would therefore be unsupported to say that a later court has followed, distinguished, applied or otherwise treated this decision.

The authorities the Court itself cited are not later treatment of this judgment. They are sources the Court used in reaching its decision. McEvoy v Wagglens Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 104 was cited for the general leave threshold; PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48 was referred to through McEvoy in relation to restraint concerning discretionary procedural decisions; House v R supplied the associated appellate restraint; and Banque Commerciale was cited in relation to pleading material facts ([15], [17]).

The decision's specific explanation of the difference between striking out a pleading and dismissing a claim may be of practical interest in later procedural disputes, but this judgment alone does not establish how later courts have used that explanation. Any account of subsequent treatment would require later judgments not included in the supplied material.

Still-open questions

The principal unresolved issue is the substantive claim. The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the circumstances of Ms Blessed's admission, detention, medical assessment or treatment gave rise to liability. It recorded the allegations and the primary judge's observations, including the possible question about whether and when a finding under the Mental Health Act had been made, but did not resolve them ([3], [10], [17]).

The judgment also does not explain what a sufficiently particularised amended claim would need to contain in this matter. It states that the amended statement of claim failed to plead material facts supporting the claim, but the appeal was disposed of on the applicant's misunderstanding of the orders rather than by a detailed examination of the pleading's individual allegations ([17]-[18]). The exact scope of any further pleading opportunity is not described beyond the Court's account of what the primary judge's orders contemplated ([17]).

The Court left the respondent's permanent-stay application undecided because it was unnecessary to consider it ([16], [18]). It likewise did not decide the respondent's objection that the leave application was out of time, despite recording that objection and the absence of an extension request or explanation for delay ([16]). Those points should not be described as having been accepted or rejected on their merits.

Finally, the judgment does not report any later procedural steps after the leave decision. It does not say whether the matter proceeded to a new pleading, whether pro bono assistance was obtained, or whether the underlying proceeding was ultimately resolved. Those outcomes remain outside the information provided by this judgment.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.