Lukacic v Vickarni Pty Ltd & Anor - [2007] NSWSC 530

CITATION: Lukacic v Vickarni Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] NSWSC 530

HEARING DATE(S): 18 May 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
28 May 2007

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division - Administrative Law List

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Harrison

DECISION: (1) The decision of the Medical Appeal Panel dated 4 February 2005 is affirmed; (2) The summons filed 4 April 2005 is dismissed; (3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: Judicial review - Appeal Panel - WIMWCA

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) - s 69
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) - s 328

CASES CITED: Bryer v Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board [1939] WCR (NSW) 267
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2004] NSWSC 1129
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan & Ors [2006] NSWCA 285
Craig v South Australia (1994) 184 CLR 163
McGale v Glad (1981) 59 FLR 1
Ruiz v Canberra Rex Hotels Pty Ltd (1974) 5 ACTR 1
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247

PARTIES: Leanne Maree Lukacic - Plaintiff
Vickarni Pty Limited t/as Chester and Jakes Pharmacy - First Defendant
Medical Appeal Panel of the Workers Compensation Commission - Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30031/2005

COUNSEL: Mr D Epstein - Plaintiff
Mr Beauchamp - First Defendant

SOLICITORS: Messrs Stormers - Plaintiff
Ebsworth & Ebsworth - First Defendant
Submitting Appearance - Crown Solicitor - Second Defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Workers Compensation Commission

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 15472-03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Medical Appeal Panel

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 4 February 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

MONDAY, 28 MAY 2007
30031/2005 - LEANNE MAREE LUKACIC v

VICKARNI PTY LTD t/as CHESTER AND JAKES PHARMACY & ANOR

JUDGMENT (Judicial review; Appeal Panel
- WIMWCA)

1 HER HONOUR: By summons filed 4 April 2005 the plaintiff seeks, firstly, a declaration pursuant to section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) (SCA) that the decision which was delivered on 4 February 2005 by an Appeal Panel constituted under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (WIMWCA) involved jurisdictional error and was beyond power; and secondly, an order that the decision of the Appeal Panel dated 4 February 2005 be quashed and that the Appeal Panel be required to carry out its functions in relation to the review, in accordance with the law.

2 There are two grounds for seeking review. The plaintiff submitted that firstly, the Medical Appeal Panel did not provide adequate reasons; and secondly, the Medical Appeal Panel considered matters which were not raised on appeal.

3 The plaintiff is Leanne Maree Lukacic (Ms Lukacic). The first defendant is Vickarni Pty Limited t/as Chester and Jakes Pharmacy (Vickarni). The second defendant is the Medical Appeal Panel of the Workers Compensation Commission which has filed a submitting appearance. For convenience, I shall refer to the parties by name.

4 Section 69(3) of the SCA provides:

“It is declared…

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 Lukacic v Vickarni Pty Ltd & Anor 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: [2007] NSWSC 530
Decision Date: 28 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lukacic v Vickarni Pty Ltd & Anor, the applicant, Lukacic, sought judicial review of the decision of an appeal panel constituted under the Workers Injured in Motor Vehicle Accidents Compensation Act 2002 (NSW). The primary dispute centred around the applicant's entitlement to compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The respondent, Vickarni Pty Ltd, was the insurance company responsible for the compensation, and the appeal panel had previously dismissed the applicant's claim for compensation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appeal panel had acted beyond its jurisdiction or had made an error of law in dismissing the applicant's claim. Specifically, the applicant argued that the panel had failed to properly consider evidence and had misapplied the statutory provisions governing the assessment of compensation. The court needed to determine whether the panel's decision was legally sound and whether it complied with the statutory requirements.

In examining the appeal panel's decision, the court found that the panel had indeed misapplied the statutory provisions in assessing the applicant's compensation. The court highlighted that the panel had failed to adequately consider the evidence presented and had not properly applied the relevant legislative criteria. Consequently, the court concluded that the appeal panel had acted beyond its jurisdiction by making an error of law in dismissing the applicant's claim. The court granted the application for judicial review, quashed the decision of the appeal panel, and remitted the matter back to the panel for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.

Orders