//
[2025] ACTSC 472
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-10-22
Balla AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Cahill v Nominal Defendant Citation: [2025] ACTSC 472 Hearing Date: 17 October 2025 Decision Date 22 October 2025 Before: Balla AJ Decision: (1) The Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is not a person under a legal disability within the meaning of r 282 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – APPLICATION – Whether plaintiff is a person with a legal disability – traumatic brain injury – where evidence of impairment does not relate directly to conduct of litigation – Court satisfied plaintiff not a person with a legal disability Legislation Cited: Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 282, Dictionary Cases Cited: De Aquino v Allred [2022] ACTSC 354 Sowmi v Master Electrical Services Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 176 PY v RJS [1982] 2 NSWLR 700 Parties: Raymond Cahill (Plaintiff) Nominal Defendant (Defendant) Representation: Counsel D Shillington (Plaintiff) L Armstrong (Defendant) Solicitors Paul Edmonds & Associates (Plaintiff) Hall & Wilcox (Defendant) File Number: SC 2 of 2025 BALLA AJ:
Mr Cahill was a pillion passenger on a motor bike when the rider crossed to the incorrect side of the road and collided with an embankment. Mr Cahill sustained a severe traumatic brain injury.
Mr Cahill commenced these proceedings against the Nominal Defendant seeking damages for his injuries and disabilities. His claim has been resolved subject to one issue which is the basis for the application heard by me on 17 October 2025.
Rule 282 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) provides that a person with a legal disability may only enter into a settlement or compromise with the Court’s approval.
The Dictionary to the Rules provides: person with a legal disability means–– … (b) a person with a mental disability. person with a mental disability, for a proceeding, means a person who is not legally competent to be a party to the proceeding …
By an application in proceeding filed on 4 September 2025, the defendant seeks a determination as to whether Mr Cahill is a person with a legal disability.
This issue arises from a medical report prepared by a joint expert Professor Cameron, a rehabilitation physician, in which he relevantly says: It is my opinion that [the plaintiff] is not capable of managing his affairs. This is due to his severe traumatic brain injury. He is at risk of financial exploitation if he has to manage significant amounts of money. …
The other evidence relevant to the issue is the following: (a) Professor Cameron also said “[h]e clearly can make day to day decisions”. (b) Mr Edmonds has been the plaintiff’s solicitor since 8 November 2020. He has met with the plaintiff on numerous occasions. He has also acted for the plaintiff in other matters. He has always been very alert to the need to assess the plaintiff’s capacity to provide him with instructions. At all times he has been comfortably satisfied that the plaintiff could understand the legal options open to him in his case, his legal entitlements and the basis on which the proposed settlement had been calculated. (c) Mr Edmonds and the plaintiff had a conference with counsel on 10 June 2025. Mr Edmonds says that the barrister advised him that he had formed the opinion that the plaintiff understood the issues in his case and he was capable of providing instructions to conduct his personal injury claim. (d) The plaintiff instructed Mr Edmonds that he would like to have his sister manage the settlement funds. Accordingly, earlier this year, Mr Edmonds retained a retired magistrate and practising solicitor to advise the plaintiff as to the appropriateness of entering into a trust deed. The solicitor was sent a copy of Professor Cameron’s report. The solicitor has advised Mr Edmonds that he also was satisfied as to the plaintiff’s capacity to understand the issues and provide instructions.
The term “legal disability” carries the notion of capacity to do the things a person has to do during litigation, including giving instructions, understanding advice and making decisions about the conduct of the proceedings. It is to be assessed in the context that the person is likely to have the support and protection of those acting in his interests in the proceedings (De Aquino v Allred [2022] ACTSC 354 at [5]).
The only evidence of some impairment does not relate directly to the conduct of the litigation but rather the management of the settlement monies.
In Sowmi v Master Electrical Services Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 176 at [12] a similar provision was considered and the following passage from PY v RJS [1982] 2 NSWLR 700 at 702 was cited with approval: … it is not sufficient, in my view, merely to demonstrate that the person lacks the high level of ability needed to deal with complicated transactions …
I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the plaintiff is not a person with a legal disability.
Orders
I certify that the preceding twelve [12] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Acting Justice Balla. Associate: Date:
Cahill
Nominal Defendant [2025] ACTSC 472