Jankulovska v Hayman

Jankulovska v Hayman is a case that involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Jankulovska, and the defendant, Hayman. The primary issue at hand was whether the Medical Panel formed an adverse view of the plaintiff's credit during the review process under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision made by the defendant, who was acting in their capacity as the Registrar of the Medical Panel, regarding a medical opinion provided by the panel.

The court was tasked with examining the legal principles surrounding the requirement for procedural fairness when forming an adverse view of a plaintiff's credit. The plaintiff argued that she was not provided with notice that her credit may be in issue, which was a breach of procedural fairness. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that there was no obligation to provide such notice, as the plaintiff did not challenge her credit. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to notice that her credit may be in issue, and if the lack of such notice constituted a breach of procedural fairness.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to notice that her credit may be in issue. The court found that the Medical Panel had formed an adverse view of the plaintiff's credit, which warranted the provision of such notice. Consequently, the court determined that the lack of notice amounted to a breach of procedural fairness, and quashed the opinion given by the Medical Panel. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that individuals are given the opportunity to respond to any adverse views formed about their credibility or character during the review process.

The final orders of the court included quashing the opinion given by the Medical Panel and remitting the matter back to the panel for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court did not make any orders regarding costs, leaving the parties to bear their own legal expenses.