RE MONGER; EX PARTE WELSBY [2003] WASCA 191
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 191 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CIV:2498/2002 | 23 MAY 2003 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J WHEELER J HASLUCK J | 25/08/03 | |
| 20 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN WELSBY |
Catchwords: | Workers compensation Certiorari Effect of order absolute quashing determination of Medical Assessment Panel Whether such an order quashes the procedural steps whereby the matter in issue was referred to the Panel Approach to be followed by the Panel in making a further determination Whether a further medical examination of the worker is necessary Requirement that determination be made within 28 days of the medical examination Quashing of further determination where no further medical examination Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 84ZA, s 84ZH, s 93D, s 93E, s 93C, s 93F, s 145D, s 145C, s 145E, s 145F, Pt III, Pt IIIA, Pt X, Pt IV Div 2 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulations 1982, reg 19J |
Case References: | Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149 Re Anastas & Ors; Ex Parte Welsby [2002] WASCA 83 Re Croser; Ex Parte Rutherford & Anor [2003] WASCA 8 Re Monger; Ex Parte Dutch (2001) 25 WAR 96 Ansett Australia Ltd v The Medical Assessment Panel (1998) 19 WAR 395 Calvin v Carr (1979) 22 ALR 417 King-Brooks v Roberts (1991) 5 WAR 500 Macksville & District Hospital v Mayze (1987) 10 NSWLR 708 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 76 ALJR 598 Re McWilliam & Ors, Ex Parte Juras, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960637; 7 November 1996 West Australian Field and Game Association Inc v Pearce (1992) 8 WAR 64 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RE MONGER; EX PARTE WELSBY [2003] WASCA 191 CORAM : MURRAY J
- WHEELER J
HASLUCK J
JOHN WELSBY
Applicant
Catchwords:
Workers compensation - Certiorari - Effect of order absolute quashing determination of Medical Assessment Panel - Whether such an order quashes the procedural steps whereby the matter in issue was referred to the Panel - Approach to be followed by the Panel in making a further determination - Whether a further medical examination of the worker is necessary - Requirement that determination be made within 28 days of the medical examination - Quashing of further determination where no further medical examination -…
Continue reading Re Monger; Ex parte Welsby
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re Monger; Ex parte Welsby [2003] WASCA 191
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 191
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The application in Re Monger was brought by Welsby, who sought to overturn a decision made by the Medical Assessment Panel in relation to a workers' compensation matter concerning Monger. The dispute involved the procedural steps taken in the assessment of Monger's medical condition and the subsequent determination made by the Panel. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the effect of an order that quashed a determination of the Medical Assessment Panel and whether such an order also nullified the procedural steps leading up to the Panel's determination. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate approach for the Panel to follow when making a further determination and whether a further medical examination of Monger was necessary. Another point of contention was whether a determination must be made within 28 days of a medical examination, and whether a further determination could be quashed if no further medical examination had occurred.
The court found that the order quashing the Panel's determination did not necessarily nullify the procedural steps leading up to the determination. It emphasised that the necessity of a further medical examination and the timeline for making a determination would depend on the specific facts of each case. The court held that the Panel should consider the circumstances of the case when deciding whether a further examination was needed and that the 28-day rule was not inflexible. The court quashed the further determination in this instance because no further medical examination had taken place.
The court allowed the application and quashed the further determination made by the Medical Assessment Panel. This decision underscores the importance of considering the specific facts of each case when dealing with procedural steps and medical examinations in workers' compensation matters.
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the effect of an order that quashed a determination of the Medical Assessment Panel and whether such an order also nullified the procedural steps leading up to the Panel's determination. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate approach for the Panel to follow when making a further determination and whether a further medical examination of Monger was necessary. Another point of contention was whether a determination must be made within 28 days of a medical examination, and whether a further determination could be quashed if no further medical examination had occurred.
The court found that the order quashing the Panel's determination did not necessarily nullify the procedural steps leading up to the determination. It emphasised that the necessity of a further medical examination and the timeline for making a determination would depend on the specific facts of each case. The court held that the Panel should consider the circumstances of the case when deciding whether a further examination was needed and that the 28-day rule was not inflexible. The court quashed the further determination in this instance because no further medical examination had taken place.
The court allowed the application and quashed the further determination made by the Medical Assessment Panel. This decision underscores the importance of considering the specific facts of each case when dealing with procedural steps and medical examinations in workers' compensation matters.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application allowed
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.