Ayana v Qantas Airways Ltd

The case of Ayana v Qantas Airways Ltd dealt with a dispute arising from the decision of a medical panel established by Qantas to assess the health and fitness of an employee. The employee, Ms Ayana, sought judicial review of the panel's decision, challenging its findings and reasoning. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the obligations of the medical panel under administrative law. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the panel was required to set out its reasoning for not considering certain diagnoses, and whether the panel's failure to explicitly reject certain medical conditions constituted a defect in its decision-making process. The case hinged on the balance between the requirement for a panel to articulate its reasoning and the principle that a panel is not obligated to explain why it did not adopt a particular view that it did not form.

The court found that while the panel had indeed set out its reasoning in excluding a diagnosis of an organic pain condition, it had not expressly considered a non-organic pain condition. However, the court acknowledged that there was a tension between the principles that a panel is required to set out its reasoning process and that it is not required to explain why it did not reach an opinion it did not form. Referencing Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak, the court concluded that the panel's decision was not vitiated by the failure to expressly consider a non-organic pain condition. Nevertheless, the court allowed the application for judicial review on the basis that the panel's findings regarding the inconsistency between the employee's presentation and video surveillance footage were not adequately explained.

The court ordered that the decision of the medical panel be quashed and remitted to the panel for reconsideration, with directions to provide a more comprehensive explanation of its findings and reasoning.