FINEMORES PTY LTD -v- BRANDERHORST [2002] WASCA 155

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 155
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)	Published:	13/06/2002
Case No:	CIV:1488/2002	Heard:	22 MAY 2002
Coram:	MURRAY J McKECHNIE J McLURE J	Delivered:	22/05/02
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	FINEMORES PTY LTD RICHARD BRANDERHORST
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Assessment of degree of disability by review officer Employment of averaging process to reconcile differing medical opinions Adequacy of reasons for decision
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA)
Case References:	Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Innovative Pre-Cast Systems v Kulenovic CM 156/00 McNair v Press (1997) 17 WAR 171 Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Palazzolo v Brown & Ors [2002] WASCA 49 Re Gillett & Ors; Ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111 Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch [2001] WASCA 220 Re Monger; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd & Anor [2002] WASCA 129 Roman Catholic Bishop of Broome v Watson [2002] WASCA 7 Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (2001) 181 ALR 307 Soulemezis v Dudley Holdings Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Summit Homes v Lucev (1996) 16 WAR 566 X v Commonwealth (1999) 200 CLR 177

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : FINEMORES PTY LTD -v- BRANDERHORST [2002] WASCA 155 CORAM : MURRAY J

McKECHNIE J

McLURE J

HEARD : 22 MAY 2002 DELIVERED : 22 MAY 2002 PUBLISHED : 13 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1488 of 2002 BETWEEN : FINEMORES PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

RICHARD BRANDERHORST

Respondent

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Assessment of degree of disability by review officer - Employment of averaging process to reconcile differing medical opinions - Adequacy of reasons for decision

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA)

(Page 2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D W Williams

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : McAuliffe Williams & Partners

Respondent : No appearance

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

Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40

Case(s) also cited:

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Innovative Pre-Cast Systems v Kulenovic CM 156/00
McNair v Press (1997) 17 WAR 171
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Palazzolo v Brown & Ors [2002] WASCA 49
Re Gillett & Ors; Ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111
Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch [2001] WASCA 220
Re Monger; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd & Anor [2002] WASCA 129
Roman Catholic Bishop of Broome v Watson [2002] WASCA 7
Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (2001) 181 ALR 307
Soulemezis v Dudley Holdings Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Summit Homes v Lucev (1996) 16 WAR 566
X…

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 Finemores Pty Ltd v BRANDERHORST 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 155
Decision Date: 13 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Finemores Pty Ltd, sought to appeal a decision made by the respondent, Branderhorst, who was a review officer under the Workers Compensation Act. The dispute centred on the assessment of the degree of disability of a worker, which was determined by Branderhorst through the employment of an averaging process to reconcile differing medical opinions. The applicant contested the adequacy of the reasons provided by Branderhorst for the decision.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Branderhorst's decision-making process was flawed, specifically concerning the use of the averaging process to reconcile the medical opinions and the adequacy of the reasons provided for the decision. The applicant argued that the averaging process was not appropriate in this instance and that the reasons provided did not sufficiently justify the degree of disability assessed. Branderhorst, on the other hand, defended the use of the averaging process and the sufficiency of the reasons given.

The court found that the averaging process employed by Branderhorst was a valid method for reconciling differing medical opinions and that the reasons provided for the decision were adequate. The court held that the decision-making process was not flawed and that the reasons given were sufficient to support the decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.