Legal Research
Cases
Re Gillett; Ex parte Rusich

Re Gillett; Ex parte Rusich

Case [2001] WASCA 111 11 April 2001

Jurisdiction

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: RE ROBERT JOHN GILLETT, JOHN LOUIS QUINTNER and RODNEY MAXWELL MOORE as members of a Medical Assessment Panel constituted under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (As Amended); EX PARTE RUSICH [2001] WASCA 111

CORAM: IPP J
MURRAY J
MILLER J

HEARD: 24 NOVEMBER 2000

DELIVERED : 11 APRIL 2001

FILE NO/S: CIV 1139 of 2000

MATTER :An application for a Writ of Certiorari against ROBERT JOHN GILLETT, JOHN LOUIS QUINTNER and RODNEY MAXWELL MOORE as members of a Medical Assessment Panel constituted under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (As Amended)

EX PARTE
WALTER RUSICH
Applicant

Catchwords:

Prerogative writs - Certiorari - Degree of disability of worker - Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 145E - Medical Assessment Panel - Whether jurisdictional error and error of law on the face of the record - Obligation of panel to give reasons for decision - Obligation to take into account all relevant medical evidence

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 5, s 25, s 62, s 84, s 93, s 145

Result:

Order nisi made absolute

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr M A Tedeschi
Intervener: Mr J R Ludlow

Solicitors:

Applicant: Taylor Smart
Intervener: McAuliffe Schwikkard

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bone v Mental Health Review Tribunal [1985] 3 All ER 330
Craig v SA (1995) 184 CLR 163
Dornan v Riordan (1990) 95 ALR 451
Ex parte Ivey & Monger [1999] WASC 250
Ex parte Juras, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960637; 11 October 1996
Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
QBE Insurance Ltd v Moltoni Corp Pty Ltd (2000) 22 WAR 148
R v Compensation Court of WA; Ex parte State Planning Commission (1990) 2 WAR 242

Case(s) also cited:

Body Corporate Strata Plan No 4166 v Stirling Properties Ltd (No 2) [1984] VR 903
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245
Comcare Australia v Lees (1997) 151 ALR 647
CSR Ltd v The Medical Panel, Midalco Pty Ltd v The Medical Panel, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 9097; 11 October 1991
Derek Thorp v Wanneroo City Council, unreported; Compensation Magistrate (J R Packington); CM 49/00; 31 July 2000
Fremantle Foundry & Engineering Co Pty Ltd v The Medical Panel, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 9200; 17 December 1991
Hockey v Yelland (1984) 157 CLR 124
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Mountview Court Properties Ltd v Devlin (1970) 21 P & CR 689
O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656
R v District Court of Queensland Northern District; Ex p Thompson (1968) 118 CLR 488
R v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Ex p Clatworthy [1985] 3 All ER 699
Ramskogler v The Director of Public Prosecutions (1995) 82 A Crim R 128
Re Poyser and Mills…

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 Re Gillett; Ex parte Rusich

Details

AGLC: Re Gillett; Ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111
Case: [2001] WASCA 111
Decision Date: 11 APRIL 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Gillett; Ex parte Rusich involved a dispute concerning the degree of disability of a worker, who was claiming compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA). The Medical Assessment Panel had assessed the worker's degree of disability and had determined that the worker was not entitled to a total permanent disability pension. The applicant sought prerogative writs, specifically certiorari, to challenge the Panel's decision on the grounds that it was made without proper consideration of all relevant medical evidence and without providing reasons for its decision. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Panel's decision constituted a jurisdictional error and whether there was an error of law on the face of the record. The applicant argued that the Panel had failed to consider all relevant medical evidence and had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, thereby making an error of law. The applicant also contended that the Panel had an obligation to take into account all relevant medical evidence and to provide reasons for its decision, as mandated by the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA).

The court examined the statutory provisions and found that the Panel had indeed made an error of law by failing to consider all relevant medical evidence and by not providing reasons for its decision. The court held that the Panel's failure to take into account all relevant medical evidence and to provide reasons for its decision amounted to an error of law on the face of the record. Consequently, the Panel's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Panel for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of the Panel's obligation to consider all relevant medical evidence and to provide reasons for its decision, as required by the relevant legislation.

The final orders of the court were that the writ of certiorari be issued, the Panel's decision quashed, and the matter remitted back to the Panel for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court did not impose any additional orders or conditions on the Panel in relation to the reconsideration of the case.

Orders