Calleja v Franet Pty Ltd - [1999] VSC 202

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CAUSES JURISDICTION Do not Send for Reporting

Not Restricted

No. 7429 of 1998

LORETTA CALLEJA	Appellant
v.
FRANET PTY. LTD. (TRADING AS FRANK HOOK PRODUCTS)	Firstnamed Respondent
- and -
DR. P. NISSELLE (as Convenor of Medical Panels pursuant to Section 63 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985)	Secondnamed Respondent
- and -
THE MEDICAL PANEL (constituted by Dr. John Honey, Dr. Moira Quinn and Dr. Richard Travers)	Thirdnamed Respondent

---

JUDGE:	VINCENT, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 APRIL 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 JUNE 1999
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CALLEJA v. FRANET PTY. LTD. & ORS.
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSC 202

---

CATCHWORDS: Review of a decision of a Medical Panel - Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic.) - Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic.) - Compensation for workplace injury - Medical questions referred to Medical Panel - Natural justice - Kioa v. West [1985] 159 CLR 550 - Appellant not given an adequate opportunity to be heard - Stanko Dumancic v. GIO Workers’ Compensation (Vic.) Ltd. & Anor. Supreme Court of Victoria, 4 March 1998 (unreported) - Masters v McCubbery [1996] 1 VR 635 - Masters v. McCubbery (No. 3) (1996) 10 V.A.R. 18 - Inadequate reasons for opinion.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr. S. McCredie	JN Zigouras & Co.
For the 1st Respondent For the 2nd & 3rd Respondents	Mr. M. Fleming Mr. P. Coish	Hall & Wilcox Ebsworth & Ebsworth

HIS HONOUR:

The appellant, Loretta Calleja, seeks a review of a decision of a Medical Panel, appointed under the provisions of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, dated 4 August 1998.

Such panels are regarded as tribunals for the purposes of the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic.). (See Masters v McCubbery [1996] 1 VR 635) and are subject to review in accordance with its provisions and the relevant principles of law. Although the convenor of the Panel and the Medical Panel itself was represented before the Court, submissions were made on behalf of the respondents by the first respondent only.

Factual Background

The appellant was employed as a process worker by the first respondent (trading as Frank Hook Products), between October 1972 and May 1995. She was injured in the course of her employment and subsequently received weekly payments of compensation for a period of 104 weeks, on the expiration of which the authorised insurer for the employer issued a notice of termination. In so doing, the insurer relied upon the provisions of s.93B s.s.(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The appellant disputed the termination of the weekly payments, contending that she remained totally incapacitated. After an attempt at conciliation had failed to resolve the dispute, a proceeding which came on for hearing, on 30 April 1998, was instituted in the Magistrates' Court on her behalf. During the course of that hearing, the first respondent served, upon Mrs. Calleja, a Notice of Request pursuant to s 45(1)(b) of…

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 Calleja v Franet 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: [1999] VSC 202
Decision Date: 1 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Calleja v. Franet Pty Ltd involved a dispute over a decision made by a Medical Panel regarding workplace injury compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic.). The appellant, Calleja, sought judicial review of the panel’s decision which had implications for the compensation he was to receive. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with examining the fairness and procedural correctness of the Medical Panel's decision.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Medical Panel had complied with the principles of natural justice when making its decision, and if the reasons provided for the decision were adequate. Specifically, the court had to determine if Calleja had been given a fair opportunity to present his case and if the reasons given for the Medical Panel's opinion were sufficient. The relevant authorities cited were Kioa v. West, which emphasised the importance of procedural fairness, and Stanko Dumancic v. GIO Workers' Compensation, which highlighted the need for adequate reasons in administrative decisions.

The court found that the Medical Panel had indeed failed to provide Calleja with an adequate opportunity to be heard, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the reasons provided for the panel’s opinion were deemed inadequate, as they did not sufficiently address the appellant’s submissions. The court referred to Masters v. McCubbery to underscore the necessity of providing clear and comprehensive reasons for decisions affecting an individual's rights. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the decision of the Medical Panel.

In light of the findings, the court made orders that the decision of the Medical Panel be quashed and the matter be remitted back for reconsideration, ensuring that Calleja would have an opportunity to be heard and that the panel would provide adequate reasons for any future decision.

Orders