Legal Research
Cases
Saveski v Brunjev Pty Ltd

Saveski v Brunjev Pty Ltd

Case [2025] NSWSC 157 7 March 2025

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Admissibility of Evidence

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Saveski v Brunjev Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 157
Hearing dates: 04 March 2025
Date of orders: 07 March 2025
Decision date: 07 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Griffiths AJ
Decision:
The second amended summons filed 19 September 2024 is dismissed with costs

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — review of medical assessment by appeal panel — judicial review of appeal panel decision — where additional evidence before appeal panel — whether appeal panel erred in finding no demonstrable error in medical assessor’s finding that maximum medical improvement had been reached — whether appeal panel erred in finding additional evidence did not establish deterioration of the worker’s condition

Legislation Cited:
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 327, 328, 376

Cases Cited:
Ballas v Department of Education (NSW) (2020) 102 NSWLR 783; [2020] NSWCA 86
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372; [2006] NSWCA 284
Duncan v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2016] NSWCA 143
Johnson v Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 102
Lancaster v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 929
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1; [2016] FCAFC 11
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18
New South Wales Land and Housing Corp v Orr (2019) 100 NSWLR 578; [2019] NSWCA 231
New South Wales Police Force v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1792
Phillips v JW Williamson and RW Williamson trading as Williamson Bros [2016] NSWSC 1681
Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155
Riverina Wines Pty Ltd v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW and Ors [2007] NSWCA 149
Roger v De Gelder [2015] NSWCA 211; 71 MVR 514
Sleiman v Gadalla Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 236
Vannini v Worldwide Demolitions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 324
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43

Texts Cited:
M Aronson, M Groves and G Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (7th ed, 2022, Thomson Reuters)
NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed, 1 April 2016)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Goran Saveski (Plaintiff)
Brunjev Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
President of the Personal Injury Commission (Second Defendant)
Jane Peacock, Roger Pillemer and Gregory McGroder as a Medical Appeal Panel constituted under section 328 of the Workplace Injury Management Act 1998 (NSW) (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Hart (Plaintiff)
I Griscti (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Michael Evers & Co (Plaintiff)
Gair Legal (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/00273592
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The applicant (Mr Goran Saveski) seeks judicial review of a decision dated 1 May 2024 of a medical appeal panel (Appeal Panel), which reviewed a medical assessment certificate (MAC

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 Saveski v Brunjev Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Saveski v Brunjev Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 157
Case: [2025] NSWSC 157
Decision Date: 07 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Saveski v Brunjev Pty Ltd involved a worker who sought compensation for a work-related injury. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The worker argued that the appeal panel had erred in its review of a medical assessment, asserting that the panel did not properly consider additional evidence that had been presented. The worker contended that the panel's findings that there was no demonstrable error in the medical assessor's conclusion that the worker had reached maximum medical improvement and that the additional evidence did not demonstrate a deterioration of the worker's condition were incorrect.

The court was required to decide whether the appeal panel had erred in its interpretation of the evidence and its application of the relevant legal principles. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the panel appropriately considered the additional evidence and whether it correctly applied the standard of review in assessing the medical assessor's findings. The court also had to consider whether the appeal panel had erred in its conclusion that the additional evidence did not establish a deterioration of the worker's condition.

The court found that the appeal panel had correctly considered the additional evidence and had not erred in its interpretation or application of the relevant legal principles. The panel had appropriately assessed the medical assessor's findings and determined that there was no demonstrable error. The court held that the appeal panel's decision was not flawed and that the panel had correctly concluded that the additional evidence did not establish a deterioration of the worker's condition. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders