Legal Research
Cases
Batovas v CCRM Pty Ltd

Batovas v CCRM Pty Ltd

Case [2020] VSC 178 11 May 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2019 00894

CHRISTOS BATOVAS	Plaintiff
v
CCRM PTY LTD and others according to the schedule	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	LYONS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Batovas v CCRM Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 178

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Certificate of Medical Panel – No current work capacity – Suitable employment – More than one medical condition – Need to consider each medical condition in combination with other relevant personal circumstances of worker – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) s 3 – Richter v Driscoll (2016) 51 VR 95 applied

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Reasons – Adequacy – Where question referred to Medical Panel required determination of work capacity from time weekly payments stopped to Medical Panel’s examination of worker and ‘currently’ – No path of reasoning for earlier period – No inference that Medical Panel plainly engaged with prior medical reports dated during earlier period – Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 applied

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A D B Ingram QC with Ms V C McLeod	Arnold Thomas & Becker Pty Ltd
For the First Defendant	Mr M F Fleming QC with Ms M Norton	Russell Kennedy

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff sustained injury in the course of his employment as a truck driver with the first defendant on 27 July 2015. On 5 October 2015, the plaintiff submitted a worker’s injury claim under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) (the ‘Act’). The plaintiff’s claim for compensation was accepted, both with respect to weekly payments of compensation, and medical and like expenses. However, by notice dated 16 October 2017, the first defendant determined to terminate the plaintiff’s weekly payments on the grounds that the plaintiff had a current work capacity or, alternatively, no current work capacity but that this was not likely to continue indefinitely.

As a result, the plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria seeking reinstatement of his weekly payments. On 10 October 2018, Magistrate O’Brien ordered that a series of medical questions be referred to a medical panel following a notice of request pursuant to s 274(1)(b) of the Act (the ‘Panel’). Relevantly, the Panel were asked whether the plaintiff had no current work capacity for two periods of time: during the period from 20 January 2018 to the date of Panel’s examination of the plaintiff (the ‘relevant period’) and currently (i.e. as at the date of the Panel’s decision).[1]
[1]20 January 2018 is relevant because it is the date on which the weekly payments of the plaintiff stopped.

The Panel issued a Certificate of Opinion and supporting reasons, both dated 2 January 2019 (the ‘Certificate’ and the ‘Reasons’). The Panel concluded, in summary, that the plaintiff…

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.

Continue reading Batovas v CCRM Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Batovas v CCRM Pty Ltd [2020] VSC 178
Case: [2020] VSC 178
Decision Date: 11 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Batovas v CCRM Pty Ltd, the dispute arose under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic). The plaintiff, Batovas, challenged the decision of the defendant, CCRM Pty Ltd, regarding his current work capacity following a workplace injury. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Batovas sought judicial review of the defendant's decision, asserting that the Medical Panel did not adequately consider his medical conditions and personal circumstances when determining his work capacity.

The primary legal issues before the court involved whether the Medical Panel appropriately assessed Batovas's work capacity and if the reasons provided for the decision were adequate. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Medical Panel had considered Batovas's multiple medical conditions in combination with his other personal circumstances, as required by section 3 of the Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the reasons provided for the decision were sufficient, particularly in relation to the period before the Medical Panel's examination.

The Court of Appeal found that the Medical Panel had not considered Batovas's medical conditions in combination with his other personal circumstances as required by the legislation. The court emphasised that each medical condition must be evaluated in the context of the individual's overall situation. The court held that the reasons provided by the Medical Panel were inadequate because they did not establish a clear path of reasoning for the period before their examination. The court noted that there was no basis to infer that the Panel had plainly engaged with the prior medical reports. The reasoning in this case was guided by the principles articulated in Richter v Driscoll and Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak.

In light of these findings, the Court of Appeal allowed Batovas's appeal and quashed the decision of CCRM Pty Ltd. The matter was remitted to the original decision-maker for reconsideration in accordance with the court's judgment.

Orders