Rodger v De Gelder

The applicants, Rodger and De Gelder, sought judicial review of a decision made by a medical review panel constituted under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). The panel had assessed the degree of permanent impairment for the purposes of the Act. The applicants contended that the panel's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the medical review panel had failed to take into account relevant considerations, specifically by not referring to particular evidence, and whether this failure amounted to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. The court also considered whether the panel had failed to accord procedural fairness by not responding to a substantial argument based on a body of evidence, and whether the panel had misunderstood a significant body of evidence relevant to the causation of injury.

The court reasoned that a failure to refer to particular evidence could indeed constitute a failure to take into account relevant considerations, particularly where that evidence was substantial and relevant to the core question before the panel. The court found that the panel had failed to apply itself to the real question it was required to decide, which involved a proper assessment of causation. This failure, coupled with a misunderstanding of a significant body of evidence, amounted to jurisdictional error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.