RE MONGER; EX PARTE WMC RESOURCES LTD & ANOR [2002] WASCA 129
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 129 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1798/2000 | 24 OCTOBER 2001 & 25 MARCH 2002 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J ANDERSON J SCOTT J | 16/05/02 | |
| 35 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | CIV 1798 of 2000, Order nisi for certiorari granted, Order nisi for prohibition refused, CIV 2207 of 2001, Leave to appeal on grounds contained in draft notice of appeal granted, CIV 2280 of 2001, Order nisi for certiorari granted, Order nisi for prohibition refused, CIV 2281 of 2001, Order nisi for certiorari granted | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WMC RESOURCES LTD HILL 50 GOLD NL RUSSELL SMITH t/as SIMPLY HEALTHY BERNADETTE FRUIN COOKS CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD CITY OF SOUTH PERTH DANIEL MARTIN TORRIJOS |
Catchwords: | Workers' compensation Dutch's case Decision by Director of Conciliation & Review to refer dispute to review officer Facts conditioning Director's jurisdiction Medical evidence supporting medical opinion as to relevant level of disability Improper referral Medical evidence insufficient Effect on jurisdiction of review officer Validity of determination by review officer Administrative law Prerogative writs Orders absolute in the first instance Decision of Director of Conciliation & Review to refer dispute to review officer Whether "adjudicative" Whether amenable to prerogative writ Practice and procedure Orders nisi for writs of certiorari Time for application Proceedings of "inferior court or tribunal" Director of Conciliation & Review appointed under Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 Whether Director a "tribunal" Applicability of time limitation |
Legislation: | Rules of the Supreme Court, O 3 r 5, O 56 r 11 Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 84I, s 84ZD, s 84ZW, s 84ZN, s 93D, s 93E Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Regulations 1982, reg 19J(1)(a) |
Case References: | Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Ex parte Savage and Savage [1989] WAR 46 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458 Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149 R v Electricity Commissioners; Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co [1924] 1 KB 171 Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Marks (2000) 75 ALJR 470 Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch [2001] WASCA 220; 30 July 2001 Re Monger; Ex parte Ivey [1999] WASC 250 Re Monger; ex parte Western Power Corporation [2000] WASC 271 Re Monger; Ex parte Western Power Corporation [2000] WASC 271; 9 November 2000 Re Smith; Ex parte Rundle (1991) 5 WAR 295 Thorp v City of Wanneroo, unreported; Compensation Magistrate's Court (Packington CM); 31 July 2000 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135 Darling Casino v NSW Casino Control Authority (1997) 191 CLR 602 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 168 Ex Parte Thomas; re Arnold [1966] 2 NSWLR 197 Federated Engine Drivers' & Firemen's Association of… |
Continue reading Re Monger; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re Monger; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd [2002] WASCA 129
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 129
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Re Monger; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd, the dispute arose from the decision by the Director of Conciliation & Review under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (Vic) to refer a workers' compensation claim to a review officer. The parties involved were WMC Resources Ltd, the employer, and the injured worker, whose identity is anonymised as Monger. The employer contested the Director's decision to refer the dispute to a review officer, arguing it was improper and not supported by sufficient medical evidence.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Director's decision to refer the dispute was "adjudicative" and thus amenable to prerogative writs. Additionally, the court needed to determine the validity of the review officer's determination given the alleged improper referral and the sufficiency of medical evidence. The employer also sought to challenge the timeliness of the Director's decision, arguing that it was outside the statutory time limit.
The court held that the Director's decision to refer the dispute was indeed "adjudicative" and therefore subject to judicial review through prerogative writs. However, the court found that the referral was improper due to insufficient medical evidence supporting the level of disability claimed. This insufficiency rendered the review officer's determination invalid. The court further determined that the Director of Conciliation & Review was not a "tribunal" within the meaning of the statutory time limitation provisions. Consequently, the court issued orders for certiorari to quash the Director's decision, but denied the application for prohibition. The court also granted leave to appeal on specific grounds and provided orders for certiorari in subsequent proceedings.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Director's decision to refer the dispute was "adjudicative" and thus amenable to prerogative writs. Additionally, the court needed to determine the validity of the review officer's determination given the alleged improper referral and the sufficiency of medical evidence. The employer also sought to challenge the timeliness of the Director's decision, arguing that it was outside the statutory time limit.
The court held that the Director's decision to refer the dispute was indeed "adjudicative" and therefore subject to judicial review through prerogative writs. However, the court found that the referral was improper due to insufficient medical evidence supporting the level of disability claimed. This insufficiency rendered the review officer's determination invalid. The court further determined that the Director of Conciliation & Review was not a "tribunal" within the meaning of the statutory time limitation provisions. Consequently, the court issued orders for certiorari to quash the Director's decision, but denied the application for prohibition. The court also granted leave to appeal on specific grounds and provided orders for certiorari in subsequent proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
CIV 1798 of 2000, Order nisi for certiorari granted, Order nisi for prohibition refused, CIV 2207 of 2001, Leave to appeal on grounds contained in draft notice of appeal granted, CIV 2280 of 2001, Order nisi for certiorari granted, Order nisi for prohibition refused, CIV 2281 of 2001, Order nisi for certiorari granted
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.