Legal Research
Cases
Farmer v AOC Australia Pty Ltd

Farmer v AOC Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 11 December 2002 21 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: FARMER -v- AOC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2002] WASCA 340

CORAM: STEYTLER J
MILLER J
SHEPPARD AUJ

HEARD: 1 OCTOBER 2002

DELIVERED : 11 DECEMBER 2002

FILE NO/S: FUL 185 of 2001

BETWEEN: DONALD WILLIAM FARMER
Appellant
AND
AOC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Dispute as to degree of disability - Decision of Director of Conciliation and Review to refer dispute to review officer - Medical evidence required to support medical opinion as to relevant level of disability - Medical evidence insufficient - Effect on jurisdiction of Director and review officer - Validity of determination by review officer - Consideration of ReMonger; Ex parte Dutch and Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 84ZN(2), s 93D(2), s 93D(5), s 93D(6), s 93D(7), s 93D(10), s 93E(3), s 93E(4)

Result:

Respondent given leave to rely on its notice of contention
Jurisdictional point upheld
Decision of review officer void

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr B L Nugawela
Respondent: Mr D W Williams

Solicitors:

Appellant: Slater & Gordon
Respondent: McAuliffe Williams & Partners

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Heritage Commission v Mt Isa Mines Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 297
Chief Adjudication Officer v Foster [1993] AC 754
Clisdell v Commissioner of Police (1993) 31 NSWLR 555
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135
Director of Public Prosecutions South Australia v B (1998) 194 CLR 566
Essex County Council v Essex Incorporated Congregational Church Union [1963] AC 808
Kuligowski v Metrobus [2002] WASCA 170
R v Alley; Ex parte NSW Plumbers & Gasfitters Employees' Union (1981) 153 CLR 376
Re Calder; Ex parte Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd (1998) 20 WAR 343
Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch (2001) 25 WAR 96
Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253
Schneeberger v TAC [2000] VCAT 1863
Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 55

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Australian Heritage Commission v Mt Isa Mines Ltd (1995) 60 FCR 456
Brown v Metro Meat International Ltd [2000] WASCA 123
Clough Resources Pty Ltd v Taylor, unreported; CM-151/01; 24 April 2002
Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395
Hood v Royal Perth Hospital, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970658; 5 December 1997
Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56
Karalis v Australian Community Pharmacy (1998) 90 FCR 473
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Kotua v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd, unreported; CM-45/02; 17 October 2002
Mayne Nickless Ltd trading as Wards Express v Mayne, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960736; 19 December 1996
Pharmacy Guild of Australia v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (1996) 70 FCR 462
Re Croser; Ex parte Rutherford (2001) 25 WAR 170
Re Monger; Ex parte Cargo Enterprises Pty…

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 Farmer v AOC Australia Pty 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: [2002] WASCA 340
Decision Date: 11 DECEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Farmer v AOC Australia Pty Ltd, the respondent, a worker, was seeking to have his workers' compensation claim assessed for a greater degree of disability. The primary dispute was whether the decision by the Director of Conciliation and Review to refer the dispute to a review officer was valid, given the lack of sufficient medical evidence to support the medical opinion regarding the degree of disability. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues revolved around the necessity of medical evidence to support a medical opinion when a dispute over the degree of disability is referred to a review officer. The court had to determine whether the absence of such evidence rendered the decision of the Director and the subsequent determination by the review officer invalid. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the extent to which the principles articulated in Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch and Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd applied to the present case.

The court found that the Director's decision to refer the dispute to a review officer was valid, despite the absence of medical evidence to support the medical opinion. The court reasoned that the primary function of the Director was to ensure that disputes were appropriately referred to a review officer for assessment, and the lack of medical evidence did not invalidate the Director's decision. The court also held that the review officer's determination was valid, as it was based on the available evidence and the principles set out in the cited cases. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Director and the review officer.

There were no further orders made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The decision confirmed that the Director's role in referring disputes to a review officer was not contingent on the presence of specific medical evidence, and the review officer's determination remained valid even without the additional evidence.

Orders