Following the approval of a settlement of proceedings in this court, the plaintiff brings an application, pursuant to r 7.18 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ("UCPR"), for removal of the tutor and variation of the settlement agreement to provide that the settlement monies be paid to him directly.
The plaintiff's application is supported by the tutor and by his medical practitioners. The affidavit material filed in support of the application is as follows:
1. Affidavit of Frances Smith sworn 18 February 2020;
2. Affidavit of the plaintiff sworn 24 February 2020;
3. Affidavit of the tutor sworn 24 February 2020;
4. Further affidavit of Frances Smith sworn 24 February 2020 attaching reports from the plaintiff's general practitioner and psychiatrist.
The NSW Trustee & Guardian, to which organisation the funds had been paid by the defendant, wrote to the solicitors for the plaintiff on 29 October 2019 and subsequently advising that the orders provided to them by the parties were defective and that the court should be approached for further orders. As is set out in the first affidavit provided by Ms Smith, subsequent consultations between the parties resulted in the tutor advising that the plaintiff was not only now able to manage his own financial affairs, but was in fact doing so, and querying whether in those circumstances the funds could be released from further supervision so that the plaintiff could purchase a house and return to the normal lifestyle he enjoyed before the onset of psychiatric illness which occurred part-way through these proceedings had warranted the appointing of a tutor.
By reason of the defect in the orders as referred to in the NSW Trustee & Guardian's correspondence, it was necessary for the funds to be returned and the orders reformulated in any event. For this reason, I made orders on 21 February 2020 as follows:
1. By consent, revoke Order 4 of her Honour Judge Gibson's orders made and entered on 18 October 2019 in District Court proceedings Mary Josephine Sparks-Simpson as tutor for Jason Matthew Sparks v Gerringong Chiropractic Pty Ltd (2018/54678).
2. Order the NSW Trustee and Guardian to pay the sum of [amount redacted] (or such other sum as may currently be in its possession) into the District Court's account, the details of which are set out below, such sum to be paid forthwith, pending further order: [bank account details redacted]
3. Matter stood over to Wednesday 26 February 2020 at 10:00am before Gibson DCJ for further orders.
4. A copy of these orders is to be provided by the Associate to Judge Gibson to the Chief Executive Officer of the NSW Trustee & Guardian and to the relevant legal officer of that organisation (Mr Michael Mobberley).
On 24 February 2020, Mr Mobberley of the NSW Trustee & Guardian telephoned my chambers to advise receipt of those orders. He was apprised of the orders being sought today and indicated that the NSW Trustee & Guardian did not propose to attend for any purpose. The funds in question have been forwarded to the court conformably with my order of 21 February 2020.
The circumstances in which the orders appointing a tutor were made were as follows. The plaintiff commenced proceedings for professional negligence against a chiropractor for injuries to his neck and subsequently suffered a stroke-like episode. Whether this was related to the treatment, and whether it was related to a subsequent deterioration in his mental capacities, were hotly contested, as is reflected in the settlement sum. The plaintiff was undergoing the breakdown of a longstanding relationship at the time and this was a major contributing factor to the level of his distress. As a result of the deterioration of his mental condition, his solicitors sought the appointment of a tutor. Orders were made to this effect, by consent, in the Wollongong Registry of this court, following the filing of a notice of motion.
The making of such orders after proceedings have been commenced, or even after the hearing has commenced (as to which, see Saravinovska v Saravinovska (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 128) is a procedure requiring the same careful attention as the removal of a tutor. I have read the report of Professor Robinson served in support of the making of the application for a tutor and understand the issues raised as to the plaintiff's mental competence at the time. I have applied that same level of care in the resolution of the issue of whether the tutor should be removed.
However, not only the lay evidence but all of the medical evidence now points to a significant improvement in the plaintiff's mental health. He is regularly seeing his treating psychiatrist, Dr Austin-Woods, who speaks well of his "much improved insight and judgment" over the past year and commends the financial responsibility he is now showing. That includes Dr Austin-Woods knowing about, and approving, the plaintiff's plan to buy a house in which he and his mother (who is still his tutor, given the failure of the parties to satisfy the NSW Trustee & Guardian that appropriate orders for investment have been made and their advice that the matter must return to court) will jointly own and reside in.
There is no objection to this course from the defendant, who has consented to the orders sought.
The circumstances in which, in the course of approving (or, in this case, varying) a compromise of substantive proceedings, a plaintiff may ask the court for a tutor to be removed are comprehensively set out by Hallen J in Rappard v Williams [2013] NSWSC 1279. I note the additional observations made by Cavanagh J in Malin v Sydney Local Health District (t/a Royal Prince Alfred Hospital) [2019] NSWSC 1765 in the course of applying Hallen J's explanation of the principles.
Unlike the factual situations in both those cases, I need not go into these issue in the present case, as I am in the fortunate position of having everyone agree that the plaintiff's significant improvement warrants the termination of the tutorship order. Although the plaintiff was entitled to represent himself in this application (as occurred in Stokes v McCourt [2014] NSWSC 61), this application is in fact made jointly by the plaintiff and his tutor and the orders consented to by the defendant.
Nor is there any dispute as to the power of this court to make such orders under UCPR Part 7 Div 4 (and in particular, r 7.18), by reason of the defective orders as identified by the NSW Trustee & Guardian, which that organisation advised the parties required a return to court. Indeed, Mr Mobberley warned the plaintiff's solicitors that if they did not return to court to seek proper orders, he would do so, and the costs would be charged against the plaintiff's already modest estate. It was largely for that reason that these proceedings were relisted before me in the first place. (While I suspect that the problem causing the asserted invalidity is due to a misunderstanding, in that the plaintiff only sent the NSW Trustee & Guardian the terms of settlement signed by the parties instead of the orders as they appear on JusticeLink (which is the correct and only record: see Cyril Smith & Associates Pty Ltd v The Owners-Strata Plan No 64970 (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 245 at [16]-[17] and Mr Justice P W Young AO, "Current Issues" (2011) 85 ALJ 615), that is an issue for another day.) The court's duty in circumstances such as these is to rectify any informality, as Basten JA pointed out in Tarrant v Statewide Secured Investments Ltd [2011] NSWCA 248 at [6] and [12]-[13].
The application in the present case is urgent, as the plaintiff and his mother have found a house they both like and which, with the benefit of this sum, they can purchase, if they are quick to do so. For this reason, the court has accorded a degree of speed to this application consistent with the requirements of s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). I have also had regard to ss 14 and 16 of that Act.
Accordingly I propose to make the orders sought as set out below.
[2]
Orders
1. The court dispense with the requirement for filing a notice of motion.
2. Pursuant to r 7.18 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Mary Josephine Sparks-Simpson be removed as tutor of Jason Matthew Sparks in District Court proceedings case number 2018/54678.
3. Upon payment of the sum of [amount redacted] by the NSW Trustee & Guardian into court, the court is to pay that sum to or at the direction of the plaintiff.
[3]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 26 May 2020