Boynes v Brown Group Personnel - [2015] VSC 702

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2015 01595

IN THE MATTER of the Accident Compensation Act 1985

PHILIP BOYNES	Plaintiff
v
BROWN GROUP PERSONNEL PTY LTD & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	RIORDAN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 DECEMBER 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 DECEMBER 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	BOYNES v BROWN GROUP PERSONNEL
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 702

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial review — Medical Panel — Jurisdictional error.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A D B Ingram with Mr D O’Brien	Arnold Thomas & Becker
For the Defendant	Mr M Fleming QC with Mr R Kumar	Thomson Geer

HIS HONOUR:

By originating motion filed 10 April 2015, the plaintiff seeks an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Certificate of Opinion of the Medical Panel (‘the Panel’) dated 11 February 2015 to which a number of questions had been referred by Magistrate Wright under s 275(1)(b) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 in respect of the plaintiff’s claim for worker’s compensation.

The relevant facts

The plaintiff was born on 2 February 1959.

At the age of 12 or 13 he suffered a left sided slipped femoral epiphysis, which was surgically treated with the insertion of pins. After about a year, there was a failed attempt to remove the pins.

After leaving secondary school, he completed a plant nursery apprenticeship and worked for the Sandringham Council tending parks and street trees for 14 years. During this time, he completed courses as an arborist and a landscaper.

In the mid to late 1990’s, he worked as a tree inspector for the City of Whitehorse and also provided some services to other city councils.

Between 2006 and 2011, he worked for Brown Group Personnel Pty Ltd (‘the defendant’) as a truck driver at a landfill site in Clayton. The work was described in the plaintiff’s submissions to the Panel as follows:

5.The plaintiff worked six days per week and he was required to transport large bins full of landfill from the public transfer station by truck to the municipal landfill.
6.The plaintiff’s duties required him to get in and out of his truck repeatedly.
7.When picking up a full bin, the plaintiff was required to climb out of his truck and hitch a bin onto the back of the truck. The plaintiff would then climb back into the cabin of his truck and drive to the landfill site where he would again alight from the cabin of the truck to unlock the door of the bin. It was then necessary for the plaintiff to climb back into the cabin of his truck and raise the tray of the truck so the rubbish would fall out. He would then alight from the truck again to lock the door of the bin, and then would take the bin back to the public transfer station where he…

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 Boynes v Brown Group Personnel

Details

AGLC: Boynes v Brown Group Personnel [2015] VSC 702
Case: [2015] VSC 702
Decision Date: 24 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Boynes v Brown Group Personnel, the court addressed an application for judicial review concerning a decision made by a medical panel. The applicant, Boynes, sought to challenge the panel's decision which dismissed his appeal against disciplinary action taken by his employer, Brown Group Personnel. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the panel's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the medical panel had jurisdiction to make the decision it did, specifically whether it had made a jurisdictional error in its determination. The court had to assess if the panel correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions and policies in reaching its conclusion. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the panel had adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness during the proceedings.

In examining the panel's decision, the court found that the panel had indeed erred in its jurisdictional approach. The panel had misconstrued the applicable statutory provisions and failed to properly consider the evidence presented. The court held that these errors amounted to a jurisdictional mistake, thereby rendering the panel's decision invalid. Consequently, the court granted the application for judicial review and quashed the decision of the medical panel. As a result, the matter was remitted back to the panel for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

Orders