RE WONG; EX PARTE INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2004] WASCA 247

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 247
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	CIV:2142/2003	Heard:	15 SEPTEMBER 2004
Coram:	MURRAY J STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J	Delivered:	3/11/04
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order nisi discharged
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Prerogative writs Workers compensation Referral to medical assessment panel Whether panel provided adequate reasons
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 145E
Case References:	Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd v Crabtree [1974] ICR 120 Bone v Mental Health Review Tribunal [1985] 3 All ER 330 Re Babban; Ex parte Suleski [2001] WASCA 289 Re Croser; Ex parte Rutherford (2001) 25 WAR 170 Re Croser; Ex parte Rutherford [2003] WASCA 8 Re Gillett; Ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111 Re Narula; Ex parte Atanasoski [2003] WASCA 156 Re Wong; Ex parte Hays, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980575; 5 October 1998 Ansett Australia Ltd v The Medical Assessment Panel (1998) 19 WAR 395 Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Palazzolo v Brown [2002] WASCA 49 Re McWilliam and Ors; ex parte Pajdak [2002] WASCA 203 Re Monger; ex parte Welsby [2003] WASCA 191

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RE WONG; EX PARTE INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2004] WASCA 247 CORAM : MURRAY J

STEYTLER J

TEMPLEMAN J

HEARD : 15 SEPTEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 2142 of 2003 MATTER : An application for a Writ of Certiorari against Dr George Wong, Dr Caroline Zanetti, Dr John Low constituted under the Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) EX PARTE

INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Applicant

Catchwords:

Prerogative writs - Workers compensation - Referral to medical assessment panel - Whether panel provided adequate reasons

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 145E

(Page 2)

Result:

Order nisi discharged

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr G T Smith

Amicus Curiae

: Ms J C Pritchard

Solicitors:

Applicant : Crisp Civitella Smith

Amicus Curiae

: State Solicitor

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

Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd v Crabtree [1974] ICR 120
Bone v Mental Health Review Tribunal [1985] 3 All ER 330
Re Babban; Ex parte Suleski [2001] WASCA 289
Re Croser; Ex parte Rutherford (2001) 25 WAR 170
Re Croser; Ex parte Rutherford [2003] WASCA 8
Re Gillett; Ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111
Re Narula; Ex parte Atanasoski [2003] WASCA 156
Re Wong; Ex parte Hays, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980575; 5 October 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Ansett Australia Ltd v The Medical Assessment Panel (1998) 19 WAR 395
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163

(Page 3)
Palazzolo v Brown [2002] WASCA 49
Re McWilliam and Ors; ex parte Pajdak [2002] WASCA 203
Re Monger; ex parte Welsby [2003] WASCA 191

(Page 4)

1 MURRAY J:…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Wong; Ex parte Inghams Enterprises 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] WASCA 247
Decision Date: 3 NOVEMBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Wong; Ex parte Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd, the applicant sought a review of a decision made by the respondent in relation to a workers compensation claim. The dispute centred on whether the medical assessment panel had provided adequate reasons for their decision regarding the applicant's claim. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the medical assessment panel's decision was sufficiently reasoned and transparent, as required by the relevant statutory provisions. The applicant argued that the panel's reasons were inadequate and did not adequately explain the basis for their decision. The court had to determine whether the panel's decision complied with the statutory requirements for providing reasons.

The court found that the panel's decision, while not perfect, was sufficiently reasoned and transparent. The court noted that the panel had provided a detailed explanation of the medical evidence and the basis for their decision. The court held that the statutory requirement for reasons was met, and that the decision was not so flawed as to be unjust or irrational. The application for a prerogative writ was therefore dismissed, and the order nisi was discharged.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order nisi discharged

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.