Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Galluzzo v Little [2013] NSWCA 116 Hearing dates: 18 March 2013 Decision date: 14 May 2013 Before: Barrett JA (at [1]); Ward JA (at [106]); Tobias AJA (at [107]) Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal and to cross-appeal.
2. Direct that notice of appeal and notice of cross-appeal be filed within fourteen days.
3. Appeal dismissed.
4. Cross-appeal allowed.
5. Set aside the orders made in the Common Law Division on 5 April 2012.
6. In lieu thereof:
(a) Dismiss the summons.
(b) Order the plaintiffs to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings.
7. That the appellants/cross-respondents pay the costs of the respondent/cross-appellant of the appeal and the cross-appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION - medical assessment - role of Medical Appeal Panel - where several injuries produce impairment - whether certificate of assessment may be issued before all impairments are fully ascertainable - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - procedural fairness - whether Medical Appeal Panel denied procedural fairness by declining to grant oral hearing and not calling for further submissions - whether judge's finding of failure by Medical Appeal Panel to give adequate reasons should have resulted in quashing of assessment - whether bare declaration is of utility - COSTS - indemnity basis - whether conduct before initiation of proceedings relevant to decision to award indemnity costs Legislation Cited: Workers Compensation Act 1998, ss 2A, 65
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, Part 7 of Chapter 7, ss 319, 322, 325, 327, 328, 331, 376Cases Cited: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564
Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47; (2006) 226 CLR 535
Department of Juvenile Justice v Edmed [2008] NSWWCCPD 6
Estate of Brockmann v Brockmann Metal Roofing Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 235
Fletcher International Exports Pty Ltd v Barrow [2007] NSWCA 244; (2007) 5 DDCR 247
Siddick v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 116; (2008) 6 DDCR 228
Symbion Health Ltd v Hrouda [2010] NSWSC 295
TJ Galluzzo and SJ Galluzzo t/as Riverwood Chemworld Chemist v Dianne Little [2011] NSWSC 1581
TJ Galluzzo and SJ Galluzzo t/as Riverwood Chemworld Chemist v Dianne Little [2012] NSWSC 324
Truth About Motorways Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd [2000] HCA 11; (2000) 200 CLR 591Texts Cited: American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, fifth edition
WorkCover Guidelines, paras 1.4, 1.5, 1.21, 45, 46Category: Principal judgment Parties: T J Galluzzo and S J Galluzzo t/as Riverwood Chemworld Chemist - Appellants/Cross-Respondents
Dianne Little…
Continue reading Galluzzo v Little
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Galluzzo v Little [2013] NSWCA 116
- Case
- [2013] NSWCA 116
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal determined that the Medical Appeal Panel's role and the proper approach to assessing multiple injuries were central to the appeal. The court examined the requirements for issuing a certificate of assessment, particularly in circumstances where the full extent of all impairments might not yet be definitively known. The principles of administrative law, specifically procedural fairness, were applied to assess whether the Panel's decision to refuse an oral hearing and further submissions was lawful. The court also considered the consequences of a finding that the Panel had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal. The appeal brought by the plaintiffs was dismissed, however, the cross-appeal was allowed. The orders made in the Common Law Division on 5 April 2012 were set aside, and in their place, the summons was dismissed. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of those proceedings. Furthermore, the appellants/cross-respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the respondent/cross-appellant of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Grant leave to appeal and to cross-appeal.
2. Direct that notice of appeal and notice of cross-appeal be filed within fourteen days.
3. Appeal dismissed.
4. Cross-appeal allowed.
5. Set aside the orders made in the Common Law Division on 5 April 2012.
6. In lieu thereof:
(a) Dismiss the summons.
(b) Order the plaintiffs to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings.
7. That the appellants/cross-respondents pay the costs of the respondent/cross-appellant of the appeal and the cross-appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.