Allwood v Sundin, Chung, Greaves

The applicant, Mr Allwood, sought judicial review of a decision of the Medical Assessment Tribunal – Psychiatric (MAT), which assessed the degree of permanent impairment resulting from his work-related psychiatric injury at four percent, deeming him ineligible to seek common law damages. The applicant was out of time to bring the application for judicial review, and his explanation for the delay was that he did not initially feel aggrieved by the MAT's decision but became aggrieved upon receiving a psychiatrist's report that clarified the impossibility of his claim for damages compensating him for the psychiatric injury suffered during his employment. The court had to determine whether there had been a satisfactory explanation of the applicant's delay, whether the grant of an extension would be fair and equitable in the circumstances, and whether there were merits in the applicant's grounds of review.

The applicant argued that until he received evidence contrary to the MAT's decision, he was not aggrieved by it, citing Shaw v Barker and Chilcott v The Medical Board of Queensland. The court noted that the applicant could have sought the opinion of Dr Dwyer at any time and that his reliance on Shaw v Barker was misplaced. The court found that the applicant's interests were not impacted or affected by the MAT's decision until he received evidence contrary to it, but this did not mean that the decision did not prejudice him. The court held that the applicant's delay in bringing the application for judicial review was not satisfactorily explained.

The MAT assessed Mr Allwood's degree of permanent impairment at four percent, which made him ineligible to seek common law damages. The MAT noted that Mr Allwood had developed an eating disorder and suffered an aggravation of anxiety and depression due to adverse events during his employment. The tribunal found that Mr Allwood continued to experience disturbed body image, daily panic attacks, reluctance to leave home, nightmares concerning work events, intrusive recollections of work events, and a disturbed body image. Mr Allwood was effectively housebound and had not returned to any form of employment or undertaken any voluntary activities.

The application was dismissed, and unless the parties wished to make submissions to the contrary, the applicant was to pay the second respondent's costs of the application on the standard basis.