Hallam Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Owczarek - [2014] VSC 402

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2013 05024

HALLAM MANUFACTURING PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
DR JACK OWCZAREK & ors (as per attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 May 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 August 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hallam Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Owczarek & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 402

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Medical Panel determination of medical questions under s 45(1)(b) Accident Compensation Act 1985 – Orders in nature of certiorari and mandamus – Alleged jurisdictional error or denial of procedural fairness by failure to address submissions – Relevant considerations – Whether conclusions open on evidence – Adequacy of reasons.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M F Fleming QC	Hall & Wilcox
For the Sixth Defendant	Mr D Masel SC with Mr M Waugh	Hounslow & Associates

HER HONOUR:

This is an application for relief in the nature of certiorari quashing the opinion of a medical panel in answer to medical questions referred to it by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria under s 45(1)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (‘the Act’). The plaintiff employer is the former employer of the sixth defendant worker.

The panel was made up of Dr Jack Owczarek, a general practitioner, Dr Cas Schreuder, a psychiatrist, Dr John Lloyd, a neuropsychiatrist, Dr Mark Faragher, a neurologist, and Mr Steven Leitl, an orthopaedic surgeon. The panel provided a certificate as to its opinion on 29 July 2013. It gave a statement of its reasons for opinion (‘the reasons’) on the same day.

The worker contests the employer’s application. The panel members have adopted the customary course of not participating in the hearing and agreeing to abide by the outcome.[1]
[1]This approach was sanctioned by the High Court in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13.

Agreed facts before the Medical Panel

The panel was supplied with a statement of agreed facts under s 65(6A) of the Act. The following facts were common ground.

(1)The worker was born on 27 February 1958 and was 55 years old on 10 May 2013.
(2)He had left school, whilst in year nine, before working in a supermarket, as a miner and then in sawmills in Tasmania for about 15 years. He had moved to Victoria, where he worked as a labourer in various factories.
(3)The worker had been engaged by the employer in about January 1998. His work duties included assembling computer racking and using fixing agents, air-powered and manual tools, as well as loading the assembled cabinets on to a truck, using a trolley.
(4)On 30 August 1999, when he was 41 years old, the worker suffered injuries to his lower back, neck and right leg as a result of being struck at work by an electrical cabinet which fell on him (‘the incident’).
(5)On about 1 September 1999, the worker completed a WorkCover…

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 Hallam Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Owczarek 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] VSC 402
Decision Date: 29 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hallam Manufacturing Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision made by a Medical Panel under section 45(1)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, which concerns the determination of medical questions. The dispute arose from the Panel's assessment of the applicant's claim for workers' compensation, which was ultimately rejected. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the Panel's decision to determine whether there were any errors in jurisdiction or procedural fairness, particularly whether the Panel had failed to address certain submissions and whether its conclusions were open on the evidence provided.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Panel had erred by not addressing specific submissions and whether its conclusions were justified by the evidence. The applicant argued that the Panel had failed to adequately consider and respond to certain medical evidence and submissions, thereby denying the applicant procedural fairness. The Court also needed to assess whether the Panel's conclusions were open on the evidence and whether the reasons provided were adequate.

In examining the Panel's decision, the Court found that while the Panel had not explicitly addressed every submission, this did not necessarily amount to a failure of procedural fairness or a jurisdictional error. The Court held that the Panel's conclusions were open on the evidence presented, and the reasons provided, although not exhaustive, were sufficient to support the decision reached. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for the orders sought in the form of certiorari and mandamus.

The Court ultimately dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the decision of the Medical Panel. The reasons given by the Court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and adequate reasons but found that the Panel's decision did not fall short in these respects. The Court's decision underscored the need for careful consideration of all submissions but also recognised the Panel's discretion in determining the weight and relevance of the evidence.

Orders