Legal Research
Cases
Devaney v Crown Melbourne Ltd

Devaney v Crown Melbourne Ltd

Case [2021] VSCA 168 17 June 2021

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Standing

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2020 0103

ROLAND DEVANEY	Applicant
v
CROWN MELBOURNE LTD & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KAYE and OSBORN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 June 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 June 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 168
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VSC 594 (Macaulay J)

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Medical panel – Applicant sought judicial review of medical panel opinion with respect to injuries to his neck, shoulders and hips allegedly incurred in the course of employment – Whether judge erred in construction of panel’s reasons – Whether panel’s conclusions not open on the evidence before it – Whether panel’s conclusions irrational or illogical – Whether panel failed to apply correct meaning of ‘injury’ as defined in the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 – Whether panel’s reasons failed to adequately disclose reasoning – Leave to appeal refused – Wingfoot Australia Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 considered – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 ss 3, 303.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A G Uren QC with Mr E Makowski	Arnold Thomas & Becker
For the First Respondent	Mr M F Fleming QC with Mr R Kumar	Wisewould Mahony
For the Second to Seventh Respondents	No appearance	Victorian Government Solicitor

BEACH JA
KAYE JA
OSBORN JA:

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of a judge of the Trial Division dismissing his claim for judicial review in respect of a Medical Panel Opinion dated 26 August 2019.[1]
[1]Devaney v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2020] VSC 594 (‘Reasons’).

The applicant was born in October 1964. He was employed by the first respondent as a chef from 1996 until February 2017. His daily tasks included pushing, pulling, lifting (including reaching above shoulder height), bending and squatting, on a repetitive basis. The items that he moved included heavy trolleys, heavy bags of produce, heavy cooking pots and trays of food.

In October 2017, the applicant commenced proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne against the first respondent pursuant to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (‘the Act’), claiming weekly payments of compensation and medical and like expenses arising out of a number of injuries that he claimed that he suffered as a result of his employment with the first respondent. Subsequently, in March 2019 the Magistrates’ Court referred certain medical opinions to a Medical Panel (‘the Panel’) for its opinion pursuant to s 274 of the Act.

The referral to the Panel listed some twelve separate physical injuries and a consequential psychological injury, all of which were claimed to have been related to the physically stressful work which the applicant had undertaken as a chef in the course of his employment with the first respondent. On 26 August 2019, the Panel provided its Certificate of Opinion in respect the questions, that were referred to it, in relation to each of those…

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 Devaney v Crown Melbourne Ltd

Details

AGLC: Devaney v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2021] VSCA 168
Case: [2021] VSCA 168
Decision Date: 17 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Devaney, sought judicial review of a decision made by a medical panel concerning injuries to his neck, shoulders, and hips, which he claimed were sustained during his employment. The respondent, Crown Melbourne Ltd, was the employer and the party responsible for the decision of the medical panel. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the judge tasked to assess whether the panel's conclusions were legally sound and whether the judge correctly interpreted the panel's reasoning.

The court examined several key issues, including whether the judge erred in interpreting the panel’s reasons, whether the panel's conclusions were justified based on the evidence, and whether the panel applied the correct definition of 'injury' as per the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. Additionally, the court considered if the panel's reasons adequately disclosed their reasoning process, ensuring transparency and fairness in their decision-making.

The court found that the judge did not err in their interpretation of the panel's reasons. The court concluded that the panel's findings were rational and not illogical, and that the correct definition of 'injury' was indeed applied. Furthermore, the court held that the panel's reasons sufficiently disclosed their reasoning, meeting the necessary legal standards. Given these findings, the court refused leave to appeal, aligning with the principles established in Wingfoot Australia Pty Ltd v Kocak.

As a result of the court's decision, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court's ruling upheld the medical panel's conclusions regarding the applicant's injuries and affirmed the legal soundness of their decision-making process.

Orders