RE BANNAN; EX PARTE SULESKI [2001] WASCA 289
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 289 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2226/2000 | 14 MAY 2001 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J WALLWORK J STEYTLER J | 25/09/01 | |
| 8 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order nisi for a writ of certiorari made absolute | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BORIS SULESKI |
Catchwords: | Workers' compensation Medical assessment panel Failure fully to answer questions posed Obligation to give sufficient reasons for determination Prerogative writs Certiorari Obligation of Medical Assessment Panel to give sufficient reasons Error on the face of the record |
Legislation: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 84ZH, s 145E |
Case References: | Masters v McCubbery [1996] 1 VR 635 Re A Medical Assessment Panel; Ex parte Hays, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980575; 5 October 1998 Re A Medical Assessment Panel; Ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111 Ex parte Ansett Australia Ltd v Medical Assessment Panel (1998) 19 WAR 395 Cheatley v The Queen (1972) 127 CLR 291 Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439 Re A Medical Assessment Panel; Ex parte Barr [2001] WASCA 89 Re A Medical Assessment Panel; Ex parte Forward, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980737; 18 December 1998 Re A Medical Panel; Ex parte CSR Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 9097; 11 October 1991 Re A Medical Panel; Ex parte Fremantle Foundry & Engineering Co Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 9200; 17 December 1991 Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v Gilchrist, Watt & Sanderson Ltd (1924) 34 CLR 482 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- WALLWORK J
STEYTLER J
EX PARTE
BORIS SULESKI
Applicant
Catchwords:
Workers' compensation - Medical assessment panel - Failure fully to answer questions posed - Obligation to give sufficient reasons for determination
Prerogative writs - Certiorari - Obligation of Medical Assessment Panel to give sufficient reasons - Error on the face of the record
Legislation:
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 84ZH, s 145E
(Page 2)
Result:
Order nisi for a writ of certiorari made absolute
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M D Cole
Intervener : Mr J R Ludlow
Solicitors:
Applicant : Terrace Law
Intervener : McAuliffe Williams & Partners
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Masters v McCubbery [1996] 1 VR 635
Re A Medical Assessment Panel; Ex parte Hays, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980575; 5 October 1998
Re A Medical Assessment Panel; Ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111
Case(s) also cited:
Ex parte Ansett Australia Ltd v Medical Assessment Panel (1998) 19 WAR 395
Cheatley v The Queen (1972) 127 CLR 291
Comcare v Mooi…
Continue reading Re Bannan; Ex parte Suleski
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re Bannan; Ex parte Suleski [2001] WASCA 289
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 289
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Re Bannan; Ex parte Suleski involved a dispute over workers' compensation, specifically focusing on the actions of the Medical Assessment Panel (MAP). Suleski sought relief against the Panel's decision, which he believed was flawed due to the Panel's failure to fully address questions posed during the assessment of his claim. The matter was brought before the court, which had to determine whether the Panel's decision was legally sound and whether it provided sufficient reasons for its determination.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the MAP's failure to fully respond to the questions posed during the assessment process constituted an error on the face of the record. The court was required to examine whether the Panel's determination was legally flawed due to this failure, and if so, whether it warranted the issuance of prerogative writs such as certiorari. The court also needed to determine if the MAP's decision-making process complied with the obligation to provide sufficient reasons for its determination.
In its decision, the court found that the MAP had indeed failed to provide a comprehensive response to the questions posed during the assessment. This omission was deemed to be an error on the face of the record. The court held that the MAP was obligated to give sufficient reasons for its determination and that the failure to address the questions adequately constituted a breach of this obligation. Consequently, the court granted the writ of certiorari, directing the MAP to provide a more thorough explanation for its decision. The order nisi for a writ of certiorari was made absolute, ensuring that the MAP complied with its duty to provide sufficient reasons for its determinations in future cases.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the MAP's failure to fully respond to the questions posed during the assessment process constituted an error on the face of the record. The court was required to examine whether the Panel's determination was legally flawed due to this failure, and if so, whether it warranted the issuance of prerogative writs such as certiorari. The court also needed to determine if the MAP's decision-making process complied with the obligation to provide sufficient reasons for its determination.
In its decision, the court found that the MAP had indeed failed to provide a comprehensive response to the questions posed during the assessment. This omission was deemed to be an error on the face of the record. The court held that the MAP was obligated to give sufficient reasons for its determination and that the failure to address the questions adequately constituted a breach of this obligation. Consequently, the court granted the writ of certiorari, directing the MAP to provide a more thorough explanation for its decision. The order nisi for a writ of certiorari was made absolute, ensuring that the MAP complied with its duty to provide sufficient reasons for its determinations in future cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order nisi for a writ of certiorari made absolute
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.