Legal Research
Cases
Hatswell v Victoria

Hatswell v Victoria

Case [2013] VSC 262 22 May 2013

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Adverse Possession

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2012 06429

BRODIE HATSWELL	Plaintiff
v
STATE OF VICTORIA, GRAHAM HAROLD RAWSON, CHERYL GLOWERY, MARK DIBSDALE, and MEDICAL PANEL (constituted by DR DIANE NEILL and DR JAMES CARSON)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	KYROU J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 May 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hatswell v Victoria
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 262

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial review — O 56, Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure)Rules 2005 — Medical panel — Alleged errors of law on the face of the record — Alleged misconstruction and misapplication of pt VBA of the Wrongs Act 1958 ss 28LL(3), 28LZG(4) — Alleged failure to take into account relevant considerations — Findings allegedly not supported by any evidence — No evidence ground of review upheld.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D Yarrow	Mr F Sanna
For the First to Fourth Defendants	Ms F McKenzie	Minter Ellison
No appearance for the Fifth Defendant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary............................................................................................................... 1

Facts....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Relevant provisions of the Wrongs Act.......................................................................................... 7

Guide to the Evaluation of Psychiatric Impairment for Clinicians.......................................... 8

Reasons for the Medical Panel’s Determination.......................................................................... 8

Legal principles relating to judicial review of decisions of medical panels........................ 10

Grounds of review........................................................................................................................... 14

Ground 2: Inadequate reasons....................................................................................................... 14

Ground 3: Misconstruction of s 28LZG(4) of the Wrongs Act.................................................. 15

Ground 3A: Failure to take into account relevant considerations........................................... 17

Ground 3B: Errors relating to effects of the 2008 and 2009 incidents..................................... 18

Proposed order.................................................................................................................................. 23

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

On 10 December 2008, the plaintiff commenced a proceeding in the County Court (‘County Court proceeding’) against the State of Victoria and three teachers who worked at the plaintiff’s former secondary school, Neerim District Secondary College (‘School’), seeking damages arising out of an incident that occurred at the School on 8 November 2005 (‘2005 incident’). The State of Victoria is the first defendant and the three teachers are the second, third and fourth defendants (collectively ‘State defendants’).

The 2005 incident involved the suspension and subsequent expulsion of the plaintiff from the School due to his alleged involvement in the tying of a fellow student with duct tape and rolling that student down a grassy embankment. The plaintiff claims that he was falsely accused of participating in those events and that, as a result of the false allegations and the suspension and subsequent expulsion, he suffered shock, nervousness and anxiety (‘Injury’).

The relief sought by the plaintiff in the County Court proceeding includes damages for non-economic loss in respect of the Injury. Given the events that have occurred, the effect of pt VBA of the Wrongs Act 1958 (‘Act’) is that the plaintiff cannot recover such damages unless a medical panel determines that the Injury has resulted in a permanent psychiatric impairment that satisfies the ‘threshold level’, that is, more than…

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.

Continue reading Hatswell v Victoria

Details

AGLC: Hatswell v Victoria [2013] VSC 262
Case: [2013] VSC 262
Decision Date: 22 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hatswell v Victoria, the plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision made by a medical panel. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of specific provisions of the Wrongs Act 1958, namely sections 28LL(3) and 28LZG(4), and the panel's alleged failure to consider relevant factors in their decision-making process. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the panel had erred in law, whether it had misapplied the relevant statutes, and if its findings were adequately supported by evidence. The plaintiff argued that the panel's decision contained errors on the face of the record and failed to take into account relevant considerations, ultimately leading to findings that were unsupported by evidence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the medical panel had erred in their interpretation and application of sections 28LL(3) and 28LZG(4) of the Wrongs Act 1958. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the panel had failed to take into account relevant considerations and if the findings were supported by evidence. The plaintiff's case hinged on the contention that the panel's decision was flawed due to these alleged errors, which warranted judicial review.

The court found that the no-evidence ground of review was indeed upheld. It determined that the medical panel had erred in their interpretation of the relevant statutes and had failed to consider pertinent factors in their decision-making. Furthermore, the court held that the findings made by the panel were not supported by any evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for judicial review was successful, and the decision of the medical panel was quashed. The court's decision underscored the importance of proper statutory interpretation and the need for decision-makers to consider all relevant factors in their assessments.

Orders