Legal Research
Cases
Re Monger; ex parte Woodford

Re Monger; ex parte Woodford

Case [1999] WASC 273 31 December 1999

Regulatory Power

Ultra Vires

Workers' Compensation

Administrative Law

Workers' Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: RE MONGER; EX PARTE WOODFORD [1999] WASC 273

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 24 DECEMBER 1999

DELIVERED : 31 DECEMBER 1999

FILE NO/S: CIV 2421 of 1999

MATTER :An application for writ of Mandamus against Ross Monger, Director of Conciliation & Review under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended)

EX PARTE
GAVIN WOODFORD
Applicant
AND
ROSS MONGER
Respondent

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Election for common law damages - Whether significant disability to be determined before election - Power to make regulations - Whether regulations ultra vires

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93E

Result:

Application refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Mr K S Pratt
Respondent:     No appearance
Intervener:     Ms J C Pritchard

Solicitors:

Applicant:     D'Angelo & Partners
Respondent:     No appearance
Intervener:     State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Boyce v Paddington Borough Council [1903] 1 Ch 109
Davies & Jones v State of Western Australia (1905) 2 CLR 29
Esmonds Motors Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1970) 120 CLR 463
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421
Ibeneweka v Egbuna [1964] 1 WLR 219
IRA, L & AC Berk Ltd v Commonwealth (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 119
Ex parte Kauter (1904) 4 SR (NSW) 209
King-Brooks v Roberts (1991) 5 WAR 500
Macris v Lucas [1971] SASR 329
The Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Footscray v Maize Products Pty Ltd (1943) 67 CLR 301
McEldowney v Forde [1969] 2 All ER 1039
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd (1949) 78 CLR 389
Wells v Finnerty (1910) 12 WALR 41
Western Australian Field and Game Association v Minister of State for Conservation and Land Management and the Environment (1992) 8 WAR 64
Young v Tockassie (1905) 2 CLR 470

McKECHNIE J: This is an application for a writ of mandamus and a declaration. The respondent has filed a notice indicating an intention to abide the result. By leave, the Attorney General has intervened, through counsel, in order that there be a proper contradictor to the arguments put forward by the applicant.
The factual basis upon which this matter comes to be considered is that on 26 July 1997, Mr Woodford suffered an injury, which he asserts was a back injury and psychiatric impairment and sequelae.
For that injury he has been receiving weekly payments.
By the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Amendment Act 1999, No 34 of 1999, as assented to on 5 October 1999, significant changes were made to workers' entitlements. Further restrictions were placed on their right to pursue an award of common law damages. Section 93E was amended. Section 93E(3) and s 93E(4) read:
"(3)Damages can only be awarded if -
(a)it is agreed or determined that the degree of disability is not less than 30% and that the agreement or determination is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Monger; ex parte Woodford

Details

AGLC: Re Monger; ex parte Woodford [1999] WASC 273
Case: [1999] WASC 273
Decision Date: 31 DECEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Monger; ex parte Woodford was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from an application by Woodford, who sought a writ of mandamus and prohibition. Woodford, the injured party, was contesting a decision made by the respondent, the Workers' Compensation Commission, which had rejected Woodford's claim for common law damages. The central issue was whether a determination of significant disability must be made prior to an election for common law damages and whether the regulations governing this process were within the power of the Commission.

The court needed to decide if the regulations allowing the Commission to decide on common law damages without first determining significant disability were valid. The case hinged on interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and determining whether the regulations were beyond the Commission's legislative authority. The court also had to consider the meaning of "significant disability" and its relevance to the election of common law damages.

In its reasoning, the court found that the regulations were not ultra vires and that the Commission was not required to determine significant disability before allowing an election for common law damages. The court held that the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions supported the validity of the regulations, and the Commission's power to make such regulations was not exceeded. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was not flawed and that the application for mandamus and prohibition was dismissed.

Orders