Re Monger

Case [2002] WASC 299


RE MONGER; EX PARTE ABB SERVICE PTY LTD [2002] WASC 299



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2002] WASC 299
Case No:CIV:1875/200022 NOVEMBER 2002
Coram:ROBERTS-SMITH J22/11/02
22Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application for order nisi for certiorari granted, Order nisi made returnable instanter, Application for order absolute refused, Order nisi discharged
A
PDF Version
Parties:ABB SERVICE PTY LTD
ENRIQUE MERINO

Catchwords:

Workers compensation
Prerogative writ
Certiorari
Decision of Director of Workers' Compensation Conciliation and Review Directorate to refer claim to Review Officer
Whether s 87ZN(1) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) precludes prerogative review of Director's decision
Time
Delay
Hearing before Review Officer imminent
Whether order absolute should be refused on discretionary grounds

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 87ZN(1)

Case References:

Public Service Association of South Australia v Federated Clerks Union (1991) 173 CLR 132
Re City of Melville; Ex parte J-Corp Pty Ltd (1998) 20 WAR 72
Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch & Ors (2001) 25 WAR 96
Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253
Re Monger; Ex parte Western Power Corporation [2000] WASC 271
Re Monger; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd & Anor [2002] WASCA 129
Thorpe v Wanneroo City Council, unreported, Appeal No CM-49/2000 (Magistrate Cockram); Library No 1085; 1 December 2000

Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd v Grand Shipping SA (1991) 173 CLR 231
Chapman v Reilly, unreported; FCA (Neaves J); 9 December 1983
Doyle v Chief of Staff (1982) 42 ALR 283
Hickey v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1983) 47 ALR 517
Highway Hotel Pty Ltd & Ors v The City of Bunbury & Ors [2000] WASCA 421
Hockey v Yelland (1984) 157 CLR 124
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344
Lucic v Nolan (1982) 45 ALR 411
Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146
Ralkon v Aboriginal Development Commission (1982) 43 ALR 535
Re Lands and Forest Commission & Anor; Ex parte South West Forests Defence Foundation, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930643; 25 November 1993
Re The City of Bunbury & Ors; Ex parte Highway Hotel Pty Ltd & Ors [2000] WASC 62
Re Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission; Ex parte Robe River Mining Company Pty Ltd (1992) 9 WAR 121
Wedesweiller v Cole (1983) 47 ALR 528

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : RE MONGER; EX PARTE ABB SERVICE PTY LTD [2002] WASC 299 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 22 NOVEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 22 NOVEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1875 of 2000 MATTER : Application for a Writ of Certiorari against ROSS MONGER, DIRECTOR OF THE CONCILIATION AND REVIEW DIRECTORATE constituted under the Workers' Compensation Act 1981 EX PARTE

    ABB SERVICE PTY LTD
    Applicant



Catchwords:

Workers compensation - Prerogative writ - Certiorari - Decision of Director of Workers' Compensation Conciliation and Review Directorate to refer claim to Review Officer - Whether…

Continue reading Re Monger

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Monger [2002] WASC 299
Case
[2002] WASC 299
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ABB Service Pty Ltd sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the decision of the Director of the Workers' Compensation Conciliation and Review Directorate to accept an application for a determination of degree of disability and refer the matter to a Review Officer for resolution. The Director's decision was made in respect of Enrique Merino, who was employed by ABB Service Pty Ltd and had sustained an injury to his right shoulder in May 1997. The Director had accepted a Form 22 application and referred the matter to a Review Officer, but ABB Service Pty Ltd claimed that the medical evidence submitted by Mr Merino did not comply with statutory requirements and that the Director's decision was therefore invalid. The application for certiorari was filed in July 2000 but was not supported by affidavit until August 2001, and the matter did not come before the court until October 2001. The court was required to decide whether the Director's decision could be challenged by prerogative writ, and if so, whether the application was time-barred and whether an order absolute should be granted. The court held that the Director's decision was not immune from prerogative review and that the application was not time-barred. However, the court refused to grant an order absolute on the basis of the undue delay and the fact that the issue could be resolved by the Review Officer. The court granted an order nisi and discharged it, returning the matter to the Review Officer for determination of the validity of the Director's referral.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.