Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hoang v Euroa Community Health Centre [2014] NSWCA 222 Hearing dates: 8 July 2014 Decision date: 08 July 2014 Before: Barrett JA at [1] and [11]; Tobias AJA at [10] Decision: Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal against striking out of statement of claim and dismissal of proceedings - no coherent cause of action disclosed - leave to appeal refused Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina Hoang (Applicant) Euroa Community Health Centre (First Respondent) Huan Tzin Goh (Second Respondent) Gordon Hyde Parker (Third Respondent) Office of the Protective Commissioner (NSW Trustee & Guardian) (Fourth Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant in person B P J Wilford (First, Second and Third Respondents) E Chrysostomou (Fourth Respondent) Solicitors: Applicant self-represented Henry Davis York (First, Second and Third Respondents) Crown Solicitor (Fourth Respondent) File Number(s): 2014/40252 Decision under appeal Citation: [2013] NSWSC 1844 Date of Decision: 2013-12-11 00:00:00 Before: Harrison J File Number(s): 2012/397181 Judgment 1BARRETT JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against certain orders adverse to her made by a judge of the Common Law Division (Harrison J) in proceedings which had not progressed beyond the filing by the applicant, as plaintiff, of a statement of claim filed on 21 December 2012 and an amended statement of claim filed on 2 December 2013. 2In the amended statement of claim, paras 1 and 2 of the pleading and particulars set out a series of factual allegations concerning contact and interactions between the applicant, on the one hand, and four persons at Euroa Community Health Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital and Kiloh Mental Health Centre, on the other. There were also allegations concerning the administering of medical treatment and about the establishment of "a medical tribunal that made legal decisions" and allowed one of the Prince of Wales hospital personnel to treat the applicant in a particular way, plus allegations concerning the appointment of a person by the Office of the Protective Commissioner to manage the applicant's finances and property, following which that person allegedly sold the applicant's home unit at what was said to be an undervalue. That much at least can be gleaned from those parts of the pleading of 2 December 2013. 3That pleading went on to allege negligence on the part of the four medical personnel and that the financial manager breached certain statutory provisions. But the pleading made no attempt at all to articulate the elements of or basis for any legal cause of action. There were references to negligence but the allegations of negligence were not in any way explained or defined so as to deal with the fundamental matters of duty of care, breach of duty, causation and damage. The allegations of misconduct by the financial manager were also devoid of any stated rationale. 4The primary judge said this of the pleaded claims: "5 The statements of claim are wholly beyond comprehension, even taking a beneficial and forbearing approach. No identifiable legal claim of any sort is articulated or even remotely discernible. None of the defendants could be expected to understand Ms Hoang's apparent complaints against them or even begin to understand or formulate ways in which they might meaningfully respond. Ms Hoang's considerable dissatisfaction with the defendants and perhaps generally is patent but the impugned pleadings conspicuously fail to disclose anything vaguely approaching the formulation or expression of a reasonable cause of action. They have a distinct tendency to cause prejudice and are definitively embarrassing. It is preferable in Ms Hoang's unrepresented state to express no view about whether they are also frivolous or vexatious or amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 6 In my view Ms Hoang has neither filed nor referred to, or so far even foreshadowed, any pleading that can withstand the defendants' combined assaults. The current statement of claim should be struck out. To the extent that there may be some doubt about which of the several versions of her pleadings is the current version, I would expect the defendants to provide me with short minutes of order that give effect to my conclusions about them." 5His Honour's conclusion was stated at para 12 as follows: "There is to my mind no utility in preserving these frail proceedings in their current vulnerable state any longer. Notice of the defendants' attitude and intentions has long been in the air. The pleadings are deficient. There is not the slightest hint of a cause of action anywhere to be found. The pleadings should be struck out and the proceedings should be dismissed. I will require the defendants to bring in short minutes of order giving effect to my conclusions identifying the currently relevant pleading. I will also hear the defendants upon the question of costs if so required." 6His Honour ultimately made an order under rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the amended statement of claim filed on 2 December 2013 be struck out and an order under rule 13.4 that the proceedings be dismissed. 7The basis on which the applicant now seeks to appeal against the making of those orders is set out in a draft notice of appeal dated 24 January 2014. The applicant has also put various documents before the Court, including, in particular, a written summary of argument and letters of 17 June 2014 and 1 July 2014. Her complaint, as it emerges from those sources and has been explained in court today, seems to be that her home unit was sold by the financial manager without her consent in circumstances where the medical parties were detaining or had detained her so that she could not act in her own interests; and also that she was subjected to inappropriate and troubling medical treatment and was not in truth in need of the particular medical attention. 8Returning to the draft notice of appeal, however, it must be said that the grounds of appeal there set out are, to say the least, obscure although one clear complaint goes to the question whether an order should have been made requiring the defendants in the Common Law Division to provide an expert medical report to the court. That complaint is made particularly in relation to the first defendant. That issue, however, played no part in the decision now under review, which was concerned solely with the viability of the pleaded case put forward first in the statement of claim of 21 December 2012 and later in the amended statement of claim of 2 December 2013. 9As to that, the assessment made by the primary judge was clearly correct. No error likely to cause this Court to reverse his discretionary decision has been identified. In my opinion, therefore, the summons seeking leave to appeal should be dismissed with costs. 10TOBIAS AJA: I agree. 11BARRETT JA: The order, therefore, is that the summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed with costs. ********** 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: 14 July 2014