Legal Research
Cases
Dodds v Atcorp Investments

Dodds v Atcorp Investments

Case [2022] VSC 392 14 July 2022

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Legitimate Expectation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2021 01361

JAMES DODDS	Appellant
v
ATCORP INVESTMENTS PTY LTD & ORS (according to the schedule)	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	Tsalamandris J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 May 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 July 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dodds v Atcorp Investments & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 392

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Opinion of Medical Panel – Assessment of worker’s medical condition and work capacity – Whether Medical Panel committed a jurisdictional error – Whether Medical Panel failed to have regard to a relevant factual matter – Medical panel accepted that plaintiff suffered from pain – Pain as medical condition – Adequacy of Panel’s reasons – Appeal dismissed – Chang v Neill [2019] VSCA 151 – Richter v Driscoll (2016) 51 VR 95 – Sidiqi v Kotsios [2021] VSCA 187 – Didani v Downes-Brydon & Ors [2021] VSCA 281 – Emmelmann v Thomson Geer Services [2020] VSC 801 – Ayana v Qantas Airways Ltd [2021] VSC 500 – Moutray v The Union Pastoral Co [2021] VSC 723 – Akbari v Victorian WorkCover Authority & Ors [2022] VSC 84 – Miletic v ANZ Banking Group Limited & Ors [2022] VSC 240 – Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May (2016) 257 CLR 468 – Calleja v Franet Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 339 – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr G Uren QC with Mr E Makowski	Arnold Thomas & Becker Lawyers
For the First Respondent	Mr D Star QC with Ms M Norton	Russell Kennedy
For the Second to Sixth Respondents	No appearance	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HER HONOUR:

Preliminary

Mr Dodds is a 44-year-old man who suffered injury to his left knee when, on 23 July 2015, during the course of his employment, he slipped off the ledge of a bench top whilst removing a window (‘the incident’). Mr Dodds seeks to claim pain and suffering and pecuniary loss damages for the injuries he suffered in this incident. In order to do so, Mr Dodds must first satisfy the ‘serious injury’ definition contained in s 325(2)(e) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act2013 (Vic) (‘the Act’).

Mr Dodds presently has an Originating Motion on foot in the County Court of Victoria, in which he is seeking leave to bring proceedings pursuant to s 335 of the Act. At the request of the first defendant, the County Court referred certain questions to a medical panel, which were relevant to the determination of his serious injury application.

On 4 March 2021, a medical panel composed of the second to sixth defendants (‘the Panel’) delivered its Certificate of Opinion (‘Opinion’) and written statement of Reasons for that Opinion (‘Reasons’). The Panel found that as a consequence of the incident, Mr Dodds suffers persistent left knee dysfunction resulting from a surgically treated medial meniscus…

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 Dodds v Atcorp Investments

Details

AGLC: Dodds v Atcorp Investments [2022] VSC 392
Case: [2022] VSC 392
Decision Date: 14 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dodds v Atcorp Investments, the dispute before the court involved the plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation and the assessment of their medical condition and work capacity. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Dodds, sought a review of a decision made by a Medical Panel that had determined their capacity to work. The panel had assessed the plaintiff's condition and concluded that they were fit to return to work, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the defendant, Atcorp Investments.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Medical Panel had made a jurisdictional error in its assessment of the plaintiff's medical condition and work capacity. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the panel had failed to consider a relevant factual matter, namely the plaintiff's assertion of pain as a medical condition. Additionally, the adequacy of the reasons provided by the panel for their decision was scrutinized.

The court examined the panel's assessment and concluded that while the plaintiff's pain was acknowledged, the panel had not erred in its determination of the plaintiff's fitness to return to work. The reasoning provided by the panel was sufficient and did not exhibit any jurisdictional error. The court found that the panel's decision was well-founded and dismissed the appeal. The court relied on various precedents, including Chang v Neill, Richter v Driscoll, and others, to support its reasoning and decision. The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the Medical Panel's decision.

Orders