Legal Research
Cases
Ripper v Kotzman

Ripper v Kotzman

Case [2008] VSC 448 28 October 2008

Judicial Review

Costs

Failure to Consider Relevant Factors

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9985 of 2007

GEOFFREY RIPPER	Plaintiff
v
DAVID KOTZMAN, BRIAN COSTELLO, DAVID WEISSMAN & GARLAND HAWTHORNE BRAHE (A FIRM)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Kyrou J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 October 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 October 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ripper v Kotzman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 448

---

Judicial review – Order 56, Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) – Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) – medical panel – failure to take into account relevant considerations – decision set aside – costs order where employer adopted a passive role in the proceeding – whether appropriate to order costs against medical panel.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A S Pillay	Workforce Legal
For the First, Second and Third Defendants	Mr D Masel	Monahan & Rowell
For the Fourth Defendant	Mr J Letten, Solicitor	Lander & Rogers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

This is an application for judicial review under Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) in relation to an opinion of a medical panel dated 26 September 2007 answering two medical questions and assessing the whole person impairment of the plaintiff, Geoffrey Ripper, at 27 percent.

The first, second and third defendants constituted the medical panel. The fourth defendant, the firm of Garland Hawthorne Brahe, is the plaintiff’s former employer. The defendants did not contradict the plaintiff’s affidavit material and made no submissions on the substantive issues. They addressed me only in relation to costs.

For the reasons set out in this judgment, I have decided to quash the opinion of the medical panel and to remit the medical questions to a medical panel to be convened in accordance with the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (“ACA”). I have also decided that the fourth defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs and that there otherwise be no order as to costs.

Facts and procedural history

As the facts are not in dispute, they can be stated briefly.

The plaintiff is a solicitor. On 18 October 2004, while returning to his office from a legal seminar, he was struck by a car on City Road, Southbank. He sustained a moderately severe injury to the brain, with a fracture to the occipital bone, bifrontal contusion with traumatic change to the olfactory nerves. He was treated in various hospitals as an in-patient until 3 December 2004. He commenced a graduated and supervised return to work program around August 2005. In about February 2006, he resumed direct contact with clients.

On 22 October 2004, the plaintiff made a claim on his employer for weekly payments of compensation and medical and like expenses. The claim was accepted by the employer’s WorkCover insurer, Allianz Workers Compensation (“Allianz”). On about 20 February 2006, the plaintiff made a claim for impairment benefits under ss 98C and 98E of the ACA. The injuries listed in the claim…

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 Ripper v Kotzman

Details

AGLC: Ripper v Kotzman [2008] VSC 448
Case: [2008] VSC 448
Decision Date: 28 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Ripper v Kotzman involved a judicial review application concerning the decision of a medical panel under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic). The applicant, Ripper, sought to challenge the panel's determination regarding his entitlement to compensation following a workplace accident. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with examining the legal soundness of the panel's decision and determining whether the panel had failed to take into account relevant considerations.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the medical panel had erred in its decision-making process by not considering all relevant factors when determining Ripper's entitlement to compensation. The applicant argued that the panel had overlooked certain medical evidence and failed to adequately address his condition, leading to an unjust outcome. The court had to decide whether the panel's failure to consider these factors constituted a legal error warranting the setting aside of the decision.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that the medical panel had indeed failed to take into account relevant considerations, resulting in a decision that was legally flawed. The court found that the panel's oversight of significant medical evidence and inadequate analysis of Ripper's condition amounted to a failure to consider relevant factors. Consequently, the court set aside the panel's decision and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. Regarding costs, the court found it appropriate to order costs against the medical panel, noting that the employer had adopted a passive role in the proceeding, thereby not opposing the application for costs. The court's final order was that the decision of the medical panel be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration, with costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders