Legal Research
Cases
Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd v Bakar

Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd v Bakar

Link copied

Case Copied 16 October 2014 24 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2014 0058

GRUMA OCEANIA PTY LTD	Appellant
v
SEHRIBAN BAKAR	First Respondent
and
SUSANNE HOMOLKA	Second Respondent
and
JENNIFER HARMER	Third Respondent
and
PAUL KIERCE	Fourth Respondent
and
PETER DOHERTY	Fifth Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NEAVE, SANTAMARIA and KYROU JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 October 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 October 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 252
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Bakar v Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 206 (Williams J)

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Medical panel – Adequacy of reasons – Accident Compensation Act 1985 s 68(2) – Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 303 ALR 64 – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr M F Fleming QC with	Minter Ellison
Ms F C Spencer
For the First Respondent	Dr K P Hanscombe QC with	Shine Lawyers
Ms K Bowshell
For the Second to Fifth Respondents	No appearance

NEAVE JA
SANTAMARIA JA
KYROU JA:

Introduction and summary

This is an appeal from an order of a judge in the Trial Division which set aside an opinion of a medical panel comprising the second to fifth respondents (‘Panel’) on the ground that the Panel’s reasons for the opinion were inadequate.

The appellant, Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd (‘Gruma’), was the employer of the first respondent (‘Ms Bakar’). Ms Bakar commenced full-time work as a process worker at Gruma’s bread manufacturing factory on 21 January 2009. On 23 October 2010 she lodged a claim for compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (‘Act’) in respect of an injury to her left shoulder. The claim was accepted and weekly compensation payments commenced. Subsequently, liability was also accepted for a bilateral shoulder injury.

On 29 November 2012, the compensation payments were terminated by the workers’ compensation claims agent with effect from 9 March 2013 on the basis that Ms Bakar had a current work capacity, or if she had no current work capacity, the incapacity was not likely to be indefinite. Ms Bakar disputed this decision, and the dispute was referred to the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service (‘ACCS’).

The ACCS referred two medical questions to the Panel, which was convened under s 63(4)(a) of the Act. The Panel gave a Certificate of Opinion (‘Opinion’) and written reasons for the Opinion (‘Reasons’) on 24 June 2013.

The two medical questions and the Panel’s answers to those questions as set out in its Opinion were as follows:

Question 1.What is the nature of the worker’s medical condition (including any sequelae) relevant to the claimed injury?
Answer:In the Panel’s opinion the worker is currently suffering from a residual left shoulder dysfunction following a rotator cuff injury, surgically treated, and from a rotator cuff dysfunction of the right shoulder, relevant to the claimed left shoulder injury.
Question 2.Does the worker have no current work capacity? If so, is this situation likely to continue indefinitely?
Answer:In the Panel’s opinion the worker has a current work capacity.

Ms Bakar…

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 Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd v Bakar 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: [2014] VSCA 252
Decision Date: 16 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd filed a case against Bakar, seeking judicial review of a decision made by a medical panel. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the reasons provided by the panel in their assessment of Bakar’s claim for workers’ compensation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the medical panel’s reasons were sufficient and whether they complied with the requirements of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the reasons provided by the panel were adequate under section 68(2) of the Act. The case referenced Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak, which established precedents regarding the adequacy of reasons in similar contexts.

The court found that the reasons provided by the panel were adequate and did not contravene the requirements of section 68(2) of the Act. The reasoning given by the panel was sufficient to allow the court to understand the basis of their decision. The court held that the panel had provided a detailed and reasoned explanation of their assessment, which was in line with the precedent set in Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal, affirming the medical panel’s decision. The court held that the reasons provided by the panel were adequate and met the statutory requirements.

Orders