RE LLOYD; EX PARTE ATANASIO [2008] WASC 93
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 93 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1827/2007 | 12 DECEMBER 2007 | |
| Coram: | EM HEENAN J | 16/05/08 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Certiorari and mandamus granted Declaration that applicant entitled to have the question of his degree of disability referred for determination | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANTONIO ATANASIO THE DIRECTOR OF WORKCOVER WA BP REFINERY (KWINANA) PTY LTD UNITED MAINTENANCE PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Administrative law Judicial review Workers' compensation Certiorari and mandamus Decision of Director of Conciliation and Review under Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) Refusal to progress application Jurisdiction of Director Dispute Resolution Jurisdiction of dispute resolution officer Availability of prerogative relief |
Legislation: | Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) |
Case References: | BHP Billiton Pty Ltd v Gomes [2007] WASCA 140 Casserley v Alcoa of Australia Ltd [2006] WASCA 150 Clough Engineering v Thomas [2004] WASCA 36 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister For The Civil Service [1985] AC 374 Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 Ellwood v Darling Downs Investments Pty Ltd [1987] 14 FCR 580; (1987) 75 ALR 47 Girrawheen Tavern v Joseph [2003] WASCA 244 McLaren v Schuit [1983] 33 SASR 139 Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369 Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference [2002] HCA 16; (2002) 209 CLR 372 Re Monger; Ex parte Cross [2004] WASCA 176 Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch [2001] WASCA 220; (2001) 25 WAR 96 Re Monger; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd [2002] WASCA 129 Roberts v Gippsland Agricultural and Earth Moving Contracting Pty Ltd [1956] VLR 555 Stollery v The Greyhound Racing Control Board [1972] HCA 53; (1972) 128 CLR 509 Transfield Pty Ltd v Rawstron [2005] WASCA 78 Willison v Van Ryswyk [1961] WAR 87 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
ANTONIO ATANASIO
Applicant
AND
THE DIRECTOR OF WORKCOVER WA
First Respondent
BP REFINERY (KWINANA) PTY LTD
Second Respondent
UNITED MAINTENANCE PTY LTD
Third Respondent
Catchwords:
Administrative law - Judicial review - Workers' compensation - Certiorari and mandamus - Decision of Director of Conciliation and Review under Workers'
(Page 2)
Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) - Refusal to progress application - Jurisdiction of Director Dispute Resolution - Jurisdiction of dispute resolution officer - Availability of prerogative relief
Legislation:
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA)
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)
Result:
Certiorari and mandamus granted
Declaration…
Continue reading Re Lloyd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re Lloyd [2008] WASC 93
- Case
- [2008] WASC 93
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Re Lloyd, the applicant, Lloyd, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Director of Conciliation and Review under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). Lloyd's application was to have the question of his degree of disability referred for determination. The decision in question was the Director's refusal to progress Lloyd's application, leading to the applicant seeking prerogative relief in the form of certiorari and mandamus.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Director of Conciliation and Review had the jurisdiction to refuse to progress Lloyd's application and, if so, whether that decision was lawful. Additionally, the court had to determine if the dispute resolution officer's decision to dismiss Lloyd's application was subject to judicial review and whether the applicant was entitled to prerogative relief.
The court held that the Director's decision to refuse to progress Lloyd's application was subject to judicial review. The court found that the Director had jurisdiction to consider the application but erred in law by refusing to progress it without proper consideration. The court further found that the dispute resolution officer's decision was also subject to judicial review and that Lloyd was entitled to have the question of his degree of disability referred for determination. The court granted Lloyd prerogative relief in the form of certiorari and mandamus, declaring that he was entitled to have his application progressed.
The final orders of the court were that certiorari and mandamus were granted. The court declared that Lloyd was entitled to have the question of his degree of disability referred for determination, effectively quashing the Director's decision and mandating that the appropriate steps be taken to progress Lloyd's application.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Director of Conciliation and Review had the jurisdiction to refuse to progress Lloyd's application and, if so, whether that decision was lawful. Additionally, the court had to determine if the dispute resolution officer's decision to dismiss Lloyd's application was subject to judicial review and whether the applicant was entitled to prerogative relief.
The court held that the Director's decision to refuse to progress Lloyd's application was subject to judicial review. The court found that the Director had jurisdiction to consider the application but erred in law by refusing to progress it without proper consideration. The court further found that the dispute resolution officer's decision was also subject to judicial review and that Lloyd was entitled to have the question of his degree of disability referred for determination. The court granted Lloyd prerogative relief in the form of certiorari and mandamus, declaring that he was entitled to have his application progressed.
The final orders of the court were that certiorari and mandamus were granted. The court declared that Lloyd was entitled to have the question of his degree of disability referred for determination, effectively quashing the Director's decision and mandating that the appropriate steps be taken to progress Lloyd's application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Certiorari and mandamus granted
Declaration that applicant entitled to have the question of his degree of
disability referred for determination
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.