KLH v Northern NSW Local Health District

2026/00237014

ADMIN LAW (other) – JRT is an adult “involuntary patient” at the mental health facility known as the Tallowwood Mental Health Inpatient Psychiatric Unit (Lismore Mental Health Unit) pursuant to the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) – the respondent contends that JRT suffers from schizophrenia, the applicant, JRT’s mother and (within the meaning of sections 4 and 71 of the Act) a “designated carer” of JRT, contends that he exhibits some symptoms of schizophrenia but disputes the accuracy of the diagnosis – on 30 March 2026, pursuant to Pt 2 Div 3 of the Act, the Mental Health Review Tribunal granted an application by an authorised medical officer of the Lismore Mental Health Unit for an “ECT administration inquiry” leading to an “ECT determination” allowing electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) treatment of JRT – the Tribunal determined that, within the terms of s 96 of the Act, JRT was incapable of giving consent to ECT, consent was not given, and that ECT was a reasonable and proper treatment for JRT’s safety and welfare – the determination authorised up to 12 ECT treatments of JRT to be completed on or before 29 June 2026, when a review of JRT’s detention as an involuntary patient is scheduled to occur – on 27 January 2026, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against the Tribunal’s determination pursuant to s 163 of the Act – the applicant contended that the Tribunal mischaracterised JRT’s condition in finding that “the efforts to date to treat [his] severe and ongoing symptoms with anti-psychotic medication [have] exhausted reasonable pharmacological treatment options” so as to justify administration of ECT – she also contended that JRT’s objection to the administration of ECT was a factor telling decisively against its administration – the primary judge found that JRT “is capable of giving informed consent to ECT but has refused” (within the terms of s 96(3)(b)(i)) and that ECT “is a reasonable and proper treatment and is necessary or desirable for the safety or welfare of [JRT]” (within the terms of s 96(3)(b)(ii)) – the primary judge, inter alia, dismissed the appeal, declared that it is in the best interest of JRT that the Lismore Mental Health Unit’s application be approved, varied the orders of the Tribunal to reflect his findings as to capacity and to approve up to 12 ECT treatments of JRT (to be completed no later than six months after the Court’s orders taking effect), and ordered that the orders would take effect on 9 June 2026 – whether the primary judge erred in finding that ECT “is a reasonable and proper treatment and is necessary or desirable for the safety or welfare” of JRT and in not properly taking into account the wishes of JRT.

KLH v Northern NSW Local Health District [2026] NSWSC 590