Bainbridge v Westside Meats Pty Ltd - [2021] VSC 320

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2019 02274

DEREK BAINBRIDGE	Plaintiff
v
WESTSIDE MEATS PTY LTD & ORS (according to the schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bainbridge v Westside Meats Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 320

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Opinion of Medical Panel – Where worker suffered subsequent unrelated injury – Whether Panel considered worker’s ability to return to work as a settled or established member of the workforce – Whether Panel’s findings supported by evidence – Adequacy of Panel’s reasons – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr AG Uren QC and Mr E Makowski	Ryan Carlisle Thomas
For the First Defendant	Mr MF Fleming QC and Ms RL Kaye	Thomson Geer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Background................................................................................................................................... 1

B. Should the Panel have taken into account Mr Bainbridge’s right leg amputation?....... 3

C. Did the Panel err in law by limiting its consideration to an ability to perform employment tasks and by not considering whether Mr Bainbridge could obtain employment or whether he could work as a settled or established member of the workforce?............................................... 5

C.1. Mr Bainbridge’s submissions.............................................................................................. 5
C.2... The legal requirements — before definitions were introduced.................................... 6
C.3.The legal requirements — in light of the current definitions........................................ 8
Capacity................................................................................................................................ 8
Suitable employment........................................................................................................ 10
Relevant ‘personal characteristics’ — time out of work.............................................. 11
Relevant ‘personal characteristics’ — marijuana use................................................... 14

C.4.The Panel’s reasons and approach in this case.............................................................. 14
C.5. . Did the Panel err as contended by Mr Bainbridge — ie did the Panel limit itself to the ability to perform the work tasks?............................................................................................... 16

D. Was there evidence that supported the Panel’s findings?................................................. 18

D.1. Finding 1 — The identified occupations would only require minimal use of Mr Bainbridge’s right hand that would not be beyond his capacity or tolerance................................. 19
D.2.Finding 2 — Evidence that the duties would not exacerbate his condition.............. 20
D.3.Finding 3 — Evidence that Mr Bainbridge had the transferable skills and capacity that would allow him to undertake the identified options with or without retraining.............. 21
D.5.Finding 4 — Evidence that Mr Bainbridge’s age and place of residence did not limit his employment options......................................................................................................... 21

E. Did the Panel give adequate reasons for its opinions?....................................................... 22

F. Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 24

HIS HONOUR:

A. Background

On 2 November 2001, Mr Bainbridge started to work for Westside Meats Pty Ltd (‘Westside Meats’), the first defendant, as a boner in its abattoir. He had injured his right wrist in employment as a boner with a previous employer. In January 2002, Mr Bainbridge began to experience increasing pain in his wrist in the course of his employment with Westside Meats. He ceased work in March 2003, and he has not worked since. In September 2004, he had an operation on his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bainbridge v Westside Meats Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] VSC 320
Decision Date: 4 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bainbridge v Westside Meats Pty Ltd involved the applicant, Mr. Bainbridge, seeking judicial review of a decision made by a Medical Panel. Mr. Bainbridge contended that the Panel had erred in its assessment of his ability to return to work after suffering an unrelated injury, following a previous workplace injury. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the Panel had considered Mr. Bainbridge's capacity to return to work as a settled or established member of the workforce, and whether the Panel's findings were adequately supported by evidence. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the Panel provided sufficient reasons for its decision, as requested by Mr. Bainbridge.

In examining the Panel's decision, the court found that the Panel had indeed considered Mr. Bainbridge's ability to return to work, including the impact of his prior injury on his current capacity. The court held that the Panel's findings were supported by the evidence provided and that the reasons given were sufficient. The court concluded that there was no basis for the applicant's claim that the Panel had failed to properly consider his ability to return to work or that its findings were inadequately supported.

As a result of the court's findings, the application for judicial review was dismissed, with the court upholding the Panel's decision.

Orders