Legal Research
Cases
Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd

Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 2 April 2014 78 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2013 1306

TERESA ANN RYAN	Plaintiff
v
THE GRANGE AT WODONGA PTY LTD & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	KYROU J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 February 2014. Written submissions received on 28 February 2014 and 4 March 2014.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 April 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 135

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial review — Order 56, Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 — Medical panel — Determination of whether the plaintiff was capable of performing her pre-injury duties — Whether the medical panel exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to comply with the time limit prescribed by s 68(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (‘Act’) — Whether the medical panel’s opinion was perverse or illogical or vitiated by other jurisdictional error — Whether medical panel’s reasons for decision were adequate — Act ss 63, 65, 68 — Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M Wheelahan SC with Mr M Waugh	Constable Connor
For the First and Second Defendants	Mr M Fleming SC with Mr R Kumar	Thomsons Lawyers
For the Third Defendants	Mr P Rowell, Solicitor	Moray & Agnew

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary............................................................................................................... 1

Facts....................................................................................................................................................... 2

The plaintiff’s work and her shoulder injury........................................................................... 2
Referral of the Medical Questions to a medical panel............................................................ 6

Relevant provisions of the Act......................................................................................................... 6

The Medical Panel’s Reasons.......................................................................................................... 9

Relief sought in this proceeding and grounds of review......................................................... 14

Absence of jurisdiction due to failure to comply with statutory time limit.......................... 14

When does the Prescribed Period commence?...................................................................... 15

Parties’ submissions............................................................................................................. 15
Decision.................................................................................................................................. 17

What are the consequences of non-compliance with the Prescribed Period?................... 22

Relevant legal principles..................................................................................................... 22
Parties’ submissions............................................................................................................. 25
Decision.................................................................................................................................. 29

Failure to take into account relevant considerations and other matters................................ 32

Relevant legal principles........................................................................................................... 34
Parties’ submissions................................................................................................................... 35
Decision........................................................................................................................................ 36

Taking into account irrelevant considerations........................................................................... 39

Relevant legal principles........................................................................................................... 39
Parties’ submissions................................................................................................................... 39
Decision........................................................................................................................................ 40

Whether the Opinion is perverse or illogical.............................................................................. 42

Relevant legal principles........................................................................................................... 42
Parties’ submissions................................................................................................................... 45
Decision........................................................................................................................................ 46

Inadequate reasons.......................................................................................................................... 47

Relevant legal principles........................................................................................................... 48
Parties’ submissions................................................................................................................... 50
Decision........................................................................................................................................ 51

Conclusion and proposed order.................................................................................................... 54

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

This is an application for review under O 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 of an opinion of a medical panel concerning a bilateral shoulder injury that the plaintiff sustained in the course of her employment with the first defendant (‘Grange’).

The opinion is dated 6 February 2013 (‘Opinion’) and was accompanied by a statement of reasons for the Opinion (‘Reasons’). The Opinion answered two medical questions (‘Medical Questions’) as follows:

Question 1.What is the nature of the worker’s medical condition (including any sequelae) relevant to the claimed injury?
AnswerIn the Panel’s opinion the worker is suffering from an aggravation of pre-existing rotator cuff degenerative changes of…

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 Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga 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: [2014] VSC 135
Decision Date: 2 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd dealt with a judicial review application regarding a decision by a medical panel. The plaintiff, Ryan, sought to challenge the panel's determination that she was incapable of performing her pre-injury duties, a decision that had implications for her workers' compensation claim. The Supreme Court was tasked with examining whether the medical panel's decision was legally sound and properly within its jurisdiction. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the panel had exceeded its powers by not adhering to the time limit set out in section 68(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and whether the panel's opinion was irrational, illogical, or otherwise flawed.

The court focused on the administrative law principles governing judicial review, particularly in the context of a medical panel's determination under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The primary issue was whether the medical panel had acted beyond its jurisdiction by not making its determination within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Additionally, the court assessed whether the panel's opinion was so unreasonable that it could be considered a jurisdictional error. The plaintiff also argued that the reasons provided by the panel for their decision were inadequate.

The Supreme Court found that the medical panel had not exceeded its jurisdiction and that there was no jurisdictional error in their determination. The court held that the time limit set out in section 68(1) of the Act was not strictly adhered to, but this did not render the panel's decision invalid. The reasons provided by the panel were deemed sufficient to support their conclusion that Ryan was incapable of performing her pre-injury duties. Consequently, the application for judicial review was refused. The court found no basis to interfere with the panel's decision, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

Orders