Legal Research
Cases
Kamener v Griffin

Kamener v Griffin

Case [2005] VSC 202 21 June 2005

Judicial Review

Reasons

Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction

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

No. 9710 of 2004

MARTIN KAMENER, STEPHANIE KAMENER, VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY	Plaintiffs
v
PHILIP GRIFFIN, Dr RICHARD TRAVERS, Dr DANIEL TRAUM , Dr TIMOTHY ENTWISLE, MARK McCOLL	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Ashley J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 and 6 June 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 June 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Kamener and ors v Griffin and ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 202	First Revision: 24 June 2005

---

Administrative law – accident compensation – questions referred to Medical Panel
under s. 45, Accident Compensation Act 1985 – opinion – reasons – judicial review –
whether reasons adequate – whether failure to exercise jurisdiction.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr J.H.L Forrest SC with Mr M.F. Fleming	Abbott, Stillman & Wilson
For the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants	Mr D. Masel	Monahan + Rowell
For the Fifth Defendant	Mr M. O’Loghlen QC with Mr P.M.E. Wischusen	Holding Redlich

HIS HONOUR:

Statement of the Case

The main question for determination in this proceeding is whether the reasons given by a Medical Panel (“the Panel”) constituted under the provision of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (“the Act”) to answer four questions referred to it by a judge of the County Court under s. 45 of the Act were sufficient. By originating motion filed 20 December 2004 Martin and Stephanie Kamener, who were the employers of the fifth defendant, Mark McColl, for a period of several months in 1999, complain that the reasons were insufficient. They, together with the Victorian WorkCover Authority are the plaintiffs in this proceeding. The defendants are respectively the four members of the Panel and Mark McColl. The plaintiffs seek that the Panel’s certified opinion in writing dated 12 November 2004 be quashed, and that the questions be referred for reconsideration by a medical panel differently constituted.

The originating motion does not confine the attack on the Panel’s opinion to the reasons. It alleges also a failure to exercise jurisdiction[1] and want of procedural fairness.[2] The second of those complaints was not pursued at trial, and in that event counsel for the Panel, who had appeared to meet the complaint, made no submissions and indicated that his clients would abide the Court’s decision. The attack for jurisdictional error, on the other hand, was pursued at trial.
[1]By grounds 7-9
[2]Grounds 10-12

How the Questions came to be Referred

The subject matter of the proceeding must be set in context.

The fifth defendant (conveniently “the worker”) was employed by the first and second plaintiffs (“the employer”) between late May and mid July 1999. On 4 July 2001 he lodged a claim for compensation. He alleged the following “injury/condition”:

“Lumber (sic) spine and right shoulder (serious pain).”

They affected:
“Right arm and spine.”

He had first noticed the injury/condition in June 1999.
He claimed that the injury/condition had arisen gradually over a period of time. He related the same to:
“Lift[ing]…

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 Kamener v Griffin

Details

AGLC: Kamener v Griffin [2005] VSC 202
Case: [2005] VSC 202
Decision Date: 21 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kamener v Griffin involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Kamener, and the defendant, Griffin, concerning the adequacy of reasons provided by the defendant, who was acting in an administrative capacity under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The crux of the matter was whether the reasons provided by the defendant, when referring questions to a Medical Panel, met the legal standard required for judicial review. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the reasons provided by the defendant were sufficient to justify the referral of questions to the Medical Panel. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the failure to provide adequate reasons constituted a failure to exercise jurisdiction properly. The adequacy of the reasons was pivotal to assessing whether the decision-making process complied with the statutory requirements under the Accident Compensation Act 1985.

The court examined the reasons provided by the defendant in detail and concluded that they were inadequate. The reasoning outlined that the statutory framework mandates that reasons be sufficiently detailed to allow for meaningful judicial review. The court found that the reasons given by the defendant did not meet this standard, thereby constituting a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, Kamener, on the grounds that the reasons provided were insufficient, and the decision-making process was flawed due to this inadequacy.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the reasons provided by the defendant were inadequate, and a ruling that the defendant had failed to properly exercise their jurisdiction. This decision underscored the importance of providing comprehensive reasons in administrative decision-making processes, particularly in contexts involving statutory requirements and potential judicial review.

Orders