RE CROSER; EX PARTE RUTHERFORD & ANOR [2003] WASCA 8
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 8 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | 07/02/2003 | ||
| Case No: | CIV:1887/2002 | 21 NOVEMBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J TEMPLEMAN J ROLFE AJ | 21/11/02 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order nisi made absolute | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | G W RUTHERFORD B D RUTHERFORD |
Catchwords: | Certiorari Failure by Medical Assessment Panel to give sufficient reasons for its determination as required by s 145E(3) Requirement of such a panel to examine the worker Some matters such a panel may address in preparing a determination |
Legislation: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 |
Case References: | Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Re Bannan; ex parte Suleski [2001] WASCA 289 Re Croser; ex parte Rutherford & Anor (2001) 25 WAR 170 Re Gillett; ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111 Re McWilliam; ex parte Juras, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960637; 7 November 1996 Re Monger; ex parte Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 281 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RE CROSER; EX PARTE RUTHERFORD & ANOR [2003] WASCA 8 CORAM : MURRAY J
- TEMPLEMAN J
ROLFE AJ
G W RUTHERFORD
B D RUTHERFORD
Applicants
Catchwords:
Certiorari - Failure by Medical Assessment Panel to give sufficient reasons for its determination as required by s 145E(3) - Requirement of such a panel to examine the worker - Some matters such a panel may address in preparing a determination
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981
Result:
Order nisi made absolute
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Mr C L Zelestis QC
Amicus Curiae : Ms J C Pritchard
Solicitors:
Applicants : Phillips Fox
Amicus Curiae : State Crown Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Re Bannan; ex parte Suleski [2001] WASCA 289
Re Croser; ex parte Rutherford & Anor (2001) 25 WAR 170
Re Gillett; ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111
Re McWilliam; ex parte Juras, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960637; 7 November 1996
Re Monger; ex parte Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 281
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MURRAY J: I have read the reasons to be published by Rolfe AJ. I agree with them. There is nothing I could usefully add.
2 TEMPLEMAN J: I also agree with the reasons to be published by Rolfe AJ.
ROLFE AJ:
The Order Nisi
3 This is the return of an order nisi for a writ of certiorari made by McLure J in chambers…
Continue reading re Croser; ex parte Rutherford
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- re Croser; ex parte Rutherford [2003] WASCA 8
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 8
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of re Croser; ex parte Rutherford involved a dispute where Rutherford sought a writ of certiorari against Croser, who was the Secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services. Rutherford was a former worker who had undergone a medical assessment by a Medical Assessment Panel. Rutherford argued that the Panel had failed to provide sufficient reasons for its determination as required by section 145E(3) of the relevant legislation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Panel had adhered to the statutory requirement to provide adequate reasons for its determination. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Panel had examined the worker and considered all relevant matters in preparing its determination. The court also had to consider the scope of matters the Panel could address in its assessment.
In its decision, the court found that the Panel had indeed failed to provide sufficient reasons for its determination, as required by section 145E(3). The court highlighted that the Panel's determination did not address all relevant matters and did not reflect a proper examination of the worker. Consequently, the court concluded that the Panel's failure to provide adequate reasons constituted a ground for the issuance of the writ of certiorari. The court then made the order nisi absolute, thereby confirming the writ's validity.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Panel had adhered to the statutory requirement to provide adequate reasons for its determination. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Panel had examined the worker and considered all relevant matters in preparing its determination. The court also had to consider the scope of matters the Panel could address in its assessment.
In its decision, the court found that the Panel had indeed failed to provide sufficient reasons for its determination, as required by section 145E(3). The court highlighted that the Panel's determination did not address all relevant matters and did not reflect a proper examination of the worker. Consequently, the court concluded that the Panel's failure to provide adequate reasons constituted a ground for the issuance of the writ of certiorari. The court then made the order nisi absolute, thereby confirming the writ's validity.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order nisi 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.