Legal Research
Cases
Millane v Millane Pty Ltd

Millane v Millane Pty Ltd

Case [2003] VSC 72 19 March 2003

Review of Decision

Interpretation of Statute

Reasons for Decision

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. 7127 of 2002

IN THE MATTER of section 3 of the Administrative Law Act 1978

BETWEEN

MICHELLE MILLANE	Applicant
v
M J MILLANE PTY LTD	First Respondent
and
SANDRA HACKER and YVONNE GREENBERG a Medical Panel constituted under the Accident Compensation Act 1985	Second Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Balmford J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 March 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 March 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Millane v Hacker & Greenberg
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 72

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Review of decision made by medical panel constituted under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 - Assessment of degree of psychiatric impairment – Interpretation of ss.91 and 98C of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 – meaning of “impairments from unrelated injuries or causes” - whether distinction made between “direct” and “indirect” results of psychiatric injury – Nature of reasons for decision.

Accident Compensation Act 1985
Administrative Law Act 1978

Calman v Commissioner of Police (1999) 167 ALR 91
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280
Del Borgo v Nisselle [2002] VSC 368
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
The Queen v The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal & Ors Ex Parte Hardiman & Ors (1980) 144 CLR 13
Ward v Corrimal-Balgownie Collieries Ltd (1938) 61 CLR 120

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Bingham	Slater & Gordon
For the First Respondent	Mr M O’Loghlen QC with Mr D Masel	TAC Law Pty Ltd

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

On 24 September 2002 Master Wheeler, on the application of the applicant, ordered pursuant to section 3 of the Administrative Law Act 1978 (“the ALA”) that the applicant had shown grounds for review of a decision made by the second respondent (“the Panel”) on 9 August 2002. That section provides that any person affected by a decision of a tribunal may apply to this Court for an order calling on the tribunal, and also any party interested in maintaining the decision, to show cause why the decision should not be reviewed. The Master made no such order. However, the matter proceeded on the basis that such an order had been made, and all parties must be taken to have assumed that such an order was implicit in the order of the Master. It is not in issue that the Panel is a “tribunal” in terms of the definition in section 2 of the ALA or that the decision sought to be reviewed is a “decision” in terms of that section.

The Panel, by its solicitors, notified the Court that it did not intend to be represented at the trial or to appear, but, in accordance with the comments of the High Court in the case of The Queen v The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal & Ors Ex Parte Hardiman & Ors[1] would submit to whatever orders the Court might make.
[1](1980) 144 CLR 13

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 Millane v Millane Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Millane v Millane Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 72
Case: [2003] VSC 72
Decision Date: 19 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Millane, sought judicial review of a decision made by a medical panel under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The panel assessed the degree of Millane’s psychiatric impairment following an incident that occurred in 2014. The primary dispute was the interpretation of sections 91 and 98C of the Act, particularly concerning the phrase "impairments from unrelated injuries or causes." The question was whether a distinction should be made between the direct and indirect results of Millane's psychiatric injury.

The court had to determine if the panel correctly interpreted the Act by considering Millane's psychiatric impairment as influenced by factors unrelated to the incident. The central issue was whether the panel properly distinguished between the direct and indirect results of Millane’s psychiatric injury, and whether the reasons provided for the decision were sufficient. The court examined the nature of the reasons required under the Administrative Law Act 1978 to ensure the decision was justifiable.

The court found that the panel had erred in its interpretation of the Act by not adequately distinguishing between direct and indirect results of Millane’s psychiatric injury. The reasons provided for the decision were insufficient as they did not clearly articulate how the panel arrived at its conclusions. The court concluded that the decision was flawed and remitted the matter back to the panel for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The decision underscored the importance of clear reasoning and proper application of statutory provisions in administrative law contexts.

Orders