Hassan v Sydney Local Health District Trading As Royal Prince Alfred Hospital / Trading As Institute of Rheumatology and Orthopaedics & Ors Hassan v Sydney Local Health District Trading As Royal Prince Alfred...

HASSAN
v
SYDNEY LOCAL HEALTH DISTRICT TRADING AS ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL / TRADING AS INSTITUTE OF RHEUMATOLOGY AND ORTHOPAEDICS & ORS
HASSAN
v
SYDNEY LOCAL HEALTH DISTRICT TRADING AS ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL / TRADING AS INSTITUTE OF RHEUMATOLOGY AND ORTHOPAEDICS
[2021] HCASL 230
S150/2021
S152/2021

The applicant filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 30 June 2020 against a decision of the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Fagan J) dismissing the applicant's claim against the first respondent in S150 of 2021, who is the respondent in S152 of 2021 ("the respondent"), for damages for injuries said to result from procedures the applicant underwent at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.
S150 of 2021
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal (Bell P, Basten and Leeming JJA) of 27 August 2021 dismissing the applicant's notice of motion dated 18 June 2021 ("18 June Motion") which sought orders in relation to, and challenging, earlier orders made by the Court of Appeal and an order referring a list of persons associated with the respondent to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and referring judges of the Supreme Court to the Commonwealth Parliament. The applicant was directed by a Registrar of the Court of Appeal to file submissions addressing why the 18 June Motion was not an abuse of process and why orders in the nature of the orders made in Teoh v Hunters Hill Council [No 4] (2011) 81 NSWLR 771 should not be made. The applicant did not file any submissions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the 18 June Motion on the basis that, with the exception of one paragraph relevantly relating to the then forthcoming hearing of one other notice of motion filed by the applicant, the 18 June Motion was an abuse of process and also made the other orders that had been foreshadowed.
The application for special leave to appeal concerns a matter of practice and procedure. The applicant identifies no question of principle which it would be in the interests of justice for this Court to consider. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision to dismiss the 18 June Motion.
S152 of 2021
On 30 June 2020, the applicant filed a notice of motion seeking leave to issue three subpoenas for the production of documents. A Registrar of the Court of Appeal refused that application. Gleeson JA dismissed a notice of motion seeking review of the Registrar's decision. Three further notices of motion filed by the applicant (dated 7 September 2020, 5 January and 18 June 2021 (the subject of S150 of 2021)) seeking, among other things, review of Gleeson JA's decision were subsequently refused by the Court of Appeal.
The Registrar directed the applicant to file her submissions in the substantive appeal by 17 March 2021. On 16 March 2021, the applicant filed a further notice of motion seeking, among other things, to adduce new evidence on appeal, renewing her application for leave to issue subpoenas and seeking a stay of the proceedings until the hearing of the motion. On 20 May 2021, Brereton JA made a self-executing order allowing a further month for the applicant to lodge her submissions in support of the appeal and, failing that, for the appeal to be dismissed. The applicant failed to file her submissions and the appeal was dismissed on 22 June 2021.
On 1 June 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion dated 30 May 2021 ("1 June Motion") seeking, among other things, to "quash" various interlocutory decisions and for leave to issue the subpoenas. A Registrar listed the notice of motion for hearing on the basis that it was an extension of time to comply with Brereton JA’s orders, a review under s 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) and an application to re-open under r 36.15 or r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). At the hearing on 31 August 2021 before the Court of Appeal (Macfarlan, Payne and McCallum JJA) conducted by audio-visual link, the applicant abruptly and deliberately disconnected her connection. On 3 September 2021, the Court of Appeal dismissed the 1 June Motion. The application for special leave to appeal the 3 September decision also concerns a matter of practice and procedure. The applicant identifies no question of principle which it would be in the interests of justice for this Court to consider and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications.

M.M. Gordon S.H.P. Steward

2 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in these proceedings were seeking to appeal against decisions made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in two cases. The first applicant, Mr Hassan, was seeking to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his claim for damages against the Sydney Local Health District Trading as Royal Prince Alfred Hospital for injuries sustained during medical procedures. The second applicant was seeking to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing her applications for various interlocutory orders and leave to issue subpoenas. The applicants sought special leave to appeal from the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Appeal's decisions were correct and whether there was any question of principle which it would be in the interests of justice for the High Court to consider. The High Court found that the Court of Appeal's decisions were correct and that there was no question of principle which would warrant the High Court's intervention. The High Court also found that the applicants' conduct during the proceedings had been unreasonable and that their applications for special leave to appeal were an abuse of process.

The High Court dismissed the applications for special leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order to that effect. The Court found that the Court of Appeal's decisions were correct and that there was no reason to doubt their correctness. The Court also found that the applicants' conduct during the proceedings had been unreasonable and that their applications for special leave to appeal were an abuse of process. The Court did not consider it necessary to consider any question of principle which the applicants had identified as being in the interests of justice for the High Court to consider.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established