Legal Research
Cases
Combined Enterprises Pty Ltd v Brister

Combined Enterprises Pty Ltd v Brister

Link copied

Case Copied 22 December 2016 42 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2016 00743

BETWEEN:

COMBINED ENTERPRISES PTY LTD	Plaintiff
and
CRAIG BRISTER	First Defendant
and
DR DAVID MURPHY	Second Defendant
and
PROF GEOFFREY LITTLEJOHN	Third Defendant
and
MR ASHLEY CARR	Fourth Defendant
and
DR JULIAN FREIDIN	Fifth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KEOGH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 September 2016
DATE OF RULING:	22 December 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Combined Enterprises Pty Ltd v Brister
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 807

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Inadequacy of reasons – Application for review of decision of medical panel – Where medical panel had determined whether first defendant had no current work capacity, with that situation likely to continue indefinitely – Meaning of ‘no current work capacity’ – Meaning of ‘suitable employment’ – Richter v Driscoll [2016] VSCA 142, Gruma v Oceania Pty Ltd v Bakar [2014] VSCA 252, Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 applied.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J P Gorton QC with Ms F C Spencer	Injury Disputes Practice Lawyers
For the First Defendant	Mr A G Uren QC with Mr A D B Ingram	Shine Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the Second to Fifth Defendants	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff in this proceeding applies for judicial review of an opinion dated 31 December 2015 (‘the opinion’) of a medical panel (‘the Panel’) convened and constituted pursuant to s 537 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (‘the Act’). The first defendant, Mr Craig Brister, suffered injury to his left shoulder in an incident which occurred in the course of his employment with the plaintiff on 11 April 2013. The second to fifth defendants comprised the Panel. The substance of the impugned opinion is that as a consequence of the injury Mr Brister has no current work capacity, and that this situation is likely to continue indefinitely.

By summons on originating motion dated 29 February 2016, and pursuant to Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, the plaintiff seeks an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Panel’s opinion, together with an order in the nature of mandamus remitting the matter for determination by a differently constituted panel. The plaintiff relies upon the affidavit of Joseph Anthony Savedra, sworn 29 February 2016, which exhibits materials including the Opinion and the Reasons for Opinion of the Panel dated 31 December 2015 (‘reasons’), together with the material provided to the Panel.

Background

Mr Brister was born in England. At the time of the Panel’s decision he was 42 years old. He attended school until the age of 16, then commenced training as a panel beater. He left that position after 12 months and then worked for two years as a glass blower, for five years installing shower and toilet units in coaches, for two years…

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 Combined Enterprises Pty Ltd v Brister 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: [2016] VSC 807
Decision Date: 22 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Combined Enterprises Pty Ltd v Brister was heard in the Court of Appeal. Combined Enterprises Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision made by a medical panel that determined the first defendant, Brister, had no current work capacity, with that situation likely to continue indefinitely. The appeal focused on the interpretation of the terms "no current work capacity" and "suitable employment" and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the medical panel for their decision.

The legal issues in this case centred around whether the medical panel had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant legislative provisions in determining the first defendant's work capacity. The court was required to consider whether the panel's decision was based on a correct understanding of the statutory language and whether the reasons provided for their decision were adequate. The case involved an analysis of previous decisions such as Richter v Driscoll, Gruma v Oceania Pty Ltd, and Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak to interpret the statutory language and assess the adequacy of the reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the medical panel had indeed interpreted the statutory language correctly and had applied it appropriately in reaching their decision. However, the court determined that the reasons provided by the panel were inadequate, as they did not sufficiently explain how the panel had arrived at their conclusion regarding the first defendant's work capacity. The court held that the inadequacy of reasons was a jurisdictional error and remitted the matter back to the medical panel for reconsideration with adequate reasons.

The final orders of the court were to remit the matter back to the medical panel for reconsideration of the first defendant's work capacity, with the requirement that adequate reasons be provided for their decision. The court did not make any orders regarding the costs of the appeal.

Orders