McDonald v The Workers Compensation Tribunal

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Appeal from a Master: Application for Judicial Review)

MCDONALD v THE WORKERS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL

[2013] SASC 34

Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Nicholson

19 March 2013

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GENERALLY

PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - MASTERS

Proceedings for judicial review commenced - permission to proceed under 6R 200(1) required - permission to proceed refused by a Master - appeal to a single Judge.

Held - Appeal dismissed.

Supreme Court Rules 6R 200, referred to.
McDonald v Department of Education and Children’s Services [2011] SAWCT 18; Francis McDonald v Department of Education and Children’s Services [2011] SAWCT 36; Ferdinands v A-G (SA) [2007] SASC 53; Gawler Region Community Forum Inc v Minister for Urban Development and Planning [2011] SASC 76; Re Stan Potter (1984) 117 LSJS 77; R v Strickland ex parte Bartsch (1986) 133 LSJS 468; Ceneavenue Pty Ltd v Martin (2008) 106 SASR 1; State of South Australia v McDonald (2009) 64 SASR 344; BQ and HM Doe Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank (1999) SASC 124; Kroezen v CGU Workers Compensation (SA) Ltd (Louth Bay Abalone Pty Ltd) [2005] SAWCT 41; House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499, considered.

MCDONALD v THE WORKERS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL
[2013] SASC 34

Appeal from a Master

NICHOLSON J.

Introduction

1. By a summons and interlocutory application filed in this Court on 24 September 2012 and directed to the Workers Compensation Tribunal, Francis Thomas McDonald, as applicant (described as plaintiff on the documents) has sought an order for judicial review by this Court of the decision of the Workers Compensation Tribunal (Hannon DP) delivered on 23 November 2011.[1]  Mr McDonald, in his interlocutory application, requested that the Supreme Court set aside the two orders made by Hannon DP, being:

   (i)that the notice of dispute (sic) 17 November 2009 with respect to the employer’s determination of 9 November 2009 be struck out for want of prosecution; and

   (ii)that the worker pays the employer’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings with respect to the period from 22 September 2011 to the date of these orders.

   [1]    Francis McDonald v Department of Education and Children’s Services [2011] SAWCT 36.

2. An applicant for judicial review in this Court must first obtain permission of the Court before proceeding with the action.  The matter came before a Master of this Court, who delivered reasons dated 4 December 2012 refusing permission for Mr McDonald to proceed with his action for judicial review.[2]  Mr McDonald now appeals to a single Judge of this Court against that decision of the Master to refuse permission.  An appeal to a single judge against such an interlocutory order of a Master is by way of re-hearing.

   [2]    Unreported, McDonald v The Workers Compensation Tribunal reasons of Judge Withers dated 4 December 2012.

3. An application for permission to proceed with judicial review is governed by Rule 200 of the Supreme Court…