JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 July 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 September 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Devaney v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 594

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review of opinion of a medical panel to which medical questions were referred pursuant to s 274 of the Workplace Injury and Rehabilitation Act 2013 (Vic) – Whether jurisdictional error – Whether the panel made findings of fact which were not open on the evidence – Whether the panel made irrational or illogical findings of fact – Whether the panel failed to apply the correct meaning of ‘injury’ as defined in the Act – Whether the Panel failed to give an adequate statement of reasons – Proceeding dismissed – Maimonis v Bourke [2019] VSCA 302 applied – Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 applied – Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 considered – Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 17 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr AG Uren QC with Mr E Makowski	Arnold Thomas & Becker
For the First Defendant	Mr MF Fleming QC with Mr Kumar	Wisewould Mahony Lawyers
For the Second to Seventh Defendants	No appearance	Victorian Government Solicitor

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Medical Panel - composition and approach................................................................................. 3

Legal Principles.................................................................................................................................. 5

Statutory provisions...................................................................................................................... 5
Function of a medical panel......................................................................................................... 7
No evidence ground of review................................................................................................... 9
Illogical or irrational ground of review..................................................................................... 9
Adequacy of reasons................................................................................................................... 11
Eschew merits review................................................................................................................. 12

Neck injury........................................................................................................................................ 12

Medical Panel findings............................................................................................................... 13
Did the Panel make the errors alleged?................................................................................... 15
No evidence?...................................................................................................................... 20
Irrational or illogical findings?........................................................................................ 20
Error in understanding “injury”?.................................................................................... 20
Failure to reveal reasoning?............................................................................................. 20

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 20

Shoulder injuries............................................................................................................................. 21

Medical Panel findings............................................................................................................... 21
Did the Panel make the errors alleged?................................................................................... 23
No evidence?...................................................................................................................... 26
Irrational or illogical findings?........................................................................................ 26
Failure to reveal reasoning?............................................................................................. 27

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 27

Hip injuries....................................................................................................................................... 27

Medical Panel findings............................................................................................................... 27
Did the Panel make the errors alleged?................................................................................... 30
No evidence?...................................................................................................................... 36
Irrational or illogical findings?........................................................................................ 36
Error in understanding “injury”?.................................................................................... 36
Failure to reveal reasoning?............................................................................................. 36

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 36

Outcome............................................................................................................................................. 37

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Roland Devaney worked as a commis chef (junior chef) for Crown Melbourne Ltd (‘Crown’) at the Crown Casino in Melbourne for a little over 20 years, before ending his employment in February 2017. On 3 October 2017 he commenced a proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne against Crown pursuant to the Workplace Injury and Rehabilitation Act 2013 (Vic) (‘WIRC Act’) claiming weekly compensation and reasonable medical expenses by reason of injuries suffered as a result of his employment.

On 12 March 2019, the Magistrates’ Court referred certain medical questions to a Medical…

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 [2020] VSC 594
Case: [2020] VSC 594
Decision Date: 17 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Devaney v Crown Melbourne Ltd involved the applicant, Devaney, seeking judicial review of the opinion of a medical panel which had been convened under the provisions of the Workplace Injury and Rehabilitation Act 2013 (Vic). The medical panel had been asked to determine whether Devaney's injuries were sustained in the course of employment and if they met the definition of an injury as outlined in the Act. The respondent, Crown Melbourne Ltd, opposed the application for review, arguing that the panel's findings were valid and that the application should be dismissed.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the medical panel had made findings that were not open on the evidence, whether they had made irrational or illogical findings, and whether they had failed to apply the correct definition of 'injury' as defined in the Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the panel had failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for their findings. The case hinged on the interpretation and application of statutory provisions and the principles of judicial review, particularly concerning the scope of judicial intervention in decisions made by expert panels.

In considering the application, the court examined the panel's decision-making process and the evidence before them. The court held that the panel had not made findings that were not open on the evidence, nor had they made irrational or illogical findings. Furthermore, the court found that the panel had correctly applied the definition of 'injury' as stipulated in the Act. The court also determined that the panel had provided a sufficient statement of reasons for their findings. The principles established in Maimonis v Bourke [2019] VSCA 302, Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480, and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 were applied in the context of the case, alongside the principles from Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 17.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the findings of the medical panel. The court found that the panel had not erred in their decision-making process and that there were no grounds for the applicant to seek judicial intervention. The respondent's opposition to the application was therefore upheld, and the decision of the medical panel was confirmed as valid.

Orders