RE MONGER; EX PARTE COOK'S CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD [2004] WASCA 165
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 165 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | 09/08/2004 | ||
| Case No: | CIV:1284/2003 | 13 MAY 2004 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J | 13/05/04 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order nisi made absolute, Decisions quashed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | COOK'S CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD ANTHONY JOHN COCI |
Catchwords: | Workers' compensation Proceedings to obtain compensation Preliminary requirements Writ of Certiorari Form 22 referral lodged by worker referring question to the Director of whether degree of disability is not less than the relevant level No attempt by worker to obtain employer's agreement prior to lodging referral Inability of worker and employer to agree on degree of disability is a condition on the power to refer that question to the Director Medical evidence provided by worker did not indicate worker's degree of disability was not less than 30 per cent Medical practitioner obliged to determine percentage degree of disability as best he or she can where Schedule 2 not applicable Use to which psychiatric impairment rating in AMA Guides might be put Referral to the Director invalid and not able to be lawfully acted on |
Legislation: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 93D, s 93E, Sch 2 |
Case References: | Clough Engineering v Thomas [2004] WASCA 36 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch (2001) 25 WAR 96 Re Monger; Ex parte United Constructions Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253 Re Monger; Ex parte Velsberry Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 9 Gourmet Chevups Pty Ltd v Coffey, unreported; Compensation Magistrate's Court; CM53/01; 26 September 2001 Re Alexeef; Ex parte Paul [2002] WASC 291 Re Croser; Ex parte Rutherford (2001) 25 WAR 170 Re Monger; Ex parte Ivey [1999] WASC 250 Re Monger; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd [2002] WASCA 129 Rydges Hotel v Tasovski, unreported; Compensation Magistrate's Court; CM116/01; 18 January 2002 SBF Engineering Pty Ltd t/as SBF Shipbuilders v Hutchin, unreported; Compensation Magistrate's Court; CM41/01; 16 August 2001 Sharp Corporation v Sammon, unreported; Compensation Magistrate's Court; CM174/00; 30 March 2001 Tambourie Nominees Pty Ltd t/as Shiny Clean v Blum, unreported; Compensation Magistrate's Court; CM68/01; 22 October 2001 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RE MONGER; EX PARTE COOK'S CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD [2004] WASCA 165 CORAM : MURRAY J
- STEYTLER J
TEMPLEMAN J
COOK'S CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
ANTHONY JOHN COCI
Contradictor
Catchwords:
Workers' compensation - Proceedings to obtain compensation - Preliminary requirements - Writ of Certiorari - Form 22 referral lodged by worker referring question to the Director of whether degree of disability is not less than the relevant level - No attempt by worker to obtain employer's agreement prior to lodging…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Monger; Ex parte Cook's Construction Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 165
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Re Monger; Ex parte Cook's Construction Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning workers' compensation. The plaintiff, Cook's Construction Pty Ltd, sought to challenge the defendant's actions regarding a referral to the Director of Workers' Compensation. The defendant, Cook, had referred a question to the Director about the degree of disability without first attempting to obtain agreement from the employer. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
The court was required to decide whether the referral to the Director was lawful, given the procedural requirements of the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the defendant was obligated to obtain the employer's agreement before lodging the referral, and whether the medical evidence provided was sufficient to justify the referral. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the referral could be upheld despite the lack of agreement between the worker and the employer on the degree of disability.
The court found that the referral to the Director was invalid. The defendant had failed to obtain agreement from the employer before lodging the referral, which was a prerequisite for such a referral. Furthermore, the medical evidence did not support the claim that the defendant's degree of disability was not less than 30 per cent. The court held that the referral was not able to be lawfully acted on, as it did not meet the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court quashed the decisions and made the orders sought by the plaintiff.
The final orders included making the order nisi absolute, thereby quashing the decisions that were the subject of the plaintiff's challenge. This outcome underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in workers' compensation proceedings and the necessity for both parties to engage in good faith negotiations to resolve disputes.
The court was required to decide whether the referral to the Director was lawful, given the procedural requirements of the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the defendant was obligated to obtain the employer's agreement before lodging the referral, and whether the medical evidence provided was sufficient to justify the referral. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the referral could be upheld despite the lack of agreement between the worker and the employer on the degree of disability.
The court found that the referral to the Director was invalid. The defendant had failed to obtain agreement from the employer before lodging the referral, which was a prerequisite for such a referral. Furthermore, the medical evidence did not support the claim that the defendant's degree of disability was not less than 30 per cent. The court held that the referral was not able to be lawfully acted on, as it did not meet the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court quashed the decisions and made the orders sought by the plaintiff.
The final orders included making the order nisi absolute, thereby quashing the decisions that were the subject of the plaintiff's challenge. This outcome underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in workers' compensation proceedings and the necessity for both parties to engage in good faith negotiations to resolve disputes.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order nisi made absolute, Decisions quashed
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.