Legal Research
Cases
Denham v Consolidated Herd Improvement Services Co-Op Ltd

Denham v Consolidated Herd Improvement Services Co-Op Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 15 October 2014 30 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

No. 3279 of 2013

ANDREW DENHAM	Plaintiff
v
CONSOLIDATED HERD IMPROVEMENT SERVICES CO-OP LTD	First Defendant
and
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR GEOFFREY LITTLEJOHN and ORS	Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants

---

JUDGE:	T. FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 July 2014
DATE OF RULING:	15 October 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Denham v Consolidated Herd Improvement
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 520

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Workers compensation – Opinion of a Medical Panel – Inadequate Reasons – Whether Medical Panel failed to explain its actual path of reasoning – Reasons not sufficiently detailed to enable Court to review for error – Whether appropriate in the circumstances to consider other grounds of review – Other grounds not considered – Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 303 ALR 64 – Bakar v Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 206 – Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 135 – Accident Compensation Act 1986 (Vic), s 68.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R. Gorton QC with Mr E. Makowski	Arnold Thomas & Becker Pty Ltd
For the First Defendant	Mr M. Fleming QC with Ms R. Kaye	Injury Disputes Practice Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for judicial review brought pursuant to Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic). Andrew Denham, the plaintiff, seeks an order in the nature of certiorari, quashing the legal effect of a Medical Panel’s certified opinion dated 29 April 2013 (‘the Opinion’). The Opinion was accompanied by a written statement of reasons for the Opinion (‘the Reasons’).

The first defendant formerly employed the plaintiff. The second to sixth defendants comprise the Medical Panel (‘the Panel’) constituted under pt III div 3 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (‘the Act’).[1] By letter of 17 June 2014 the second to sixth defendants advised that they will submit to such orders as the Court might make in the proceeding and have neither appeared nor made legal submissions.[2]
[1]Part III of the Act was repealed as of 1 July 2014 and provisions governing the constitution, functions and powers of Medical Panels now appear in the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic), pt 6 div 3. References to the Act are to the Act as it was in force at the date of the Opinion.
[2]See R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex Parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13, 35.

The Panel formed the Opinion on four medical questions that were referred to it in the context of a dispute concerning the plaintiff’s entitlement to workers compensation. I will turn shortly to the function of the Panel and its place in this proceeding.

The plaintiff impugns the Opinion on four grounds:

a) The Panel erred in its construction or application of the definition of “suitable employment” and/or “current…

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 Denham v Consolidated Herd Improvement Services Co-Op 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: [2014] VSC 520
Decision Date: 15 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Denham sought judicial review of a decision by Consolidated Herd Improvement Services Co-Op Ltd, which refused to accept an opinion provided by a Medical Panel regarding the nature and extent of injuries sustained in a workplace incident. The Supreme Court of Victoria examined the refusal and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Medical Panel. The central issue before the court was whether the reasons provided by the Medical Panel were adequate for judicial review. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Panel's reasons sufficiently detailed their reasoning process to enable effective judicial review, and whether it was appropriate to consider other grounds of review if the reasons were inadequate.

The court held that the reasons provided by the Medical Panel were inadequate because they did not sufficiently explain the path of reasoning followed by the Panel. As a result, the court could not effectively review the Panel's decision for error. The court also noted that it was not appropriate to consider other grounds of review in these circumstances. The court relied on the principles established in Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak, Bakar v Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd, and Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd, which emphasised the importance of adequate reasons for judicial review. The court found that the Panel's reasons did not meet the necessary standard, as they were not sufficiently detailed to enable effective review.

Consequently, the court allowed Denham's application for judicial review. The court quashed the decision of the Medical Panel and remitted the matter to the Panel for reconsideration with adequate reasons. The court's decision underscores the importance of providing clear and detailed reasons in administrative decisions, particularly in cases involving complex medical assessments. The court's order ensures that Denham's case will be reconsidered with proper judicial oversight, promoting fairness and transparency in the decision-making process.

Orders