Melhem v Hanna Bros Investments Pty Ltd

The case before the court involved Melhem, the claimant, against Hanna Bros Investments Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute centred on a workers' compensation claim, specifically the assessment and subsequent award of a lump sum for a whole person impairment due to a psychological injury. The Arbitrator, acting under Section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, had previously entered an award following the issuance of a Medical Assessment Certificate by an Approved Medical Specialist. The respondent contested this decision, leading to an application for recision of the award.

The legal issues the court had to resolve involved the nature of the recision order and whether it was interlocutory. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the alleged errors during the interlocutory proceedings amounted to a relevant error under Section 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The respondent argued that the Arbitrator had made errors in the process that warranted recision of the award.

In its reasoning, the court confirmed that the Arbitrator’s decisions as outlined in the Certificate of Determination dated 18 August 2015 were upheld. The court found that the recision order was interlocutory in nature and proceeded to examine the alleged errors. The court determined that the relevant error made out did not justify the recision of the award. The matter was remitted to the Arbitrator to allow for appropriate adjudication on the terms of the referral to the Approved Medical Specialist for reconsideration.