SEDDON -v- MEDICAL ASSESSMENT PANEL [No 2] [2012] WASC 1 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 1 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2010/2011	Heard:	15 DECEMBER 2011 & 22 MARCH 2012
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	10/01/12
Supplementary Delivered:	28/03/12
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Orders made including special costs orders
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RAOUL THOMAS SEDDON MEDICAL ASSESSMENT PANEL SHANE MELVILLE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION DIRECTORATE MIRVAC (WA) PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Special costs orders Whether an amount of costs allowable under a costs determination is inadequate because of the unusual difficulty, complexity or importance of the matter
Legislation:	Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) Contentious Business Determination 2010 (WA) Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA)
Case References:	Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S) Heartlink Ltd v Jones As Liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S) Hodgkinson v Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 237 (S) Margaret River Resources Pty Ltd v His Honour Warden Calder SM [2008] WASCA 238 (S) Minniti v Motor Vehicle Industry Board [2011] WASCA 275 (S) SDS Corporation Ltd v Pasdonnay Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 26 (S2)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SEDDON -v- MEDICAL ASSESSMENT PANEL [No 2] [2012] WASC 1 (S) CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 15 DECEMBER 2011 & 22 MARCH 2012 DELIVERED : 10 JANUARY 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 28 MARCH 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 2010 of 2011 MATTER : In the matter of an application for a writ of certiorari against Dr Alexeeff, Dr La Bianca and Dr Brown, members of a Medical Assessment Panel under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) BETWEEN : RAOUL THOMAS SEDDON

Applicant

AND

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT PANEL

First Respondent

SHANE MELVILLE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION DIRECTORATE

Second Respondent

MIRVAC (WA) PTY LTD

Intervener

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Special costs orders - Whether an amount of costs allowable under a costs determination is inadequate because of the unusual difficulty, complexity or importance of the matter

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) Contentious Business Determination 2010 (WA)

Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA)

Result:

Orders made including special costs orders

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr R E Lindsay

First Respondent : No appearance

Second Respondent : No appearance

Intervener : Mr C P Shanahan SC

Solicitors:

Applicant : S C Nigam & Co

First Respondent : No appearance

Second Respondent : No appearance

Intervener : Rankin Nathan Lawyers

(Page 3)

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

Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S)
Heartlink Ltd v Jones As Liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S)
Hodgkinson v Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 237 (S)
Margaret River Resources Pty Ltd v His Honour Warden Calder SM [2008] WASCA 238 (S)
Minniti v Motor Vehicle Industry Board…

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 Seddon v Medical Assessment Panel [No 2] 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: [2012] WASC 1 (S)
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Seddon v Medical Assessment Panel [No 2] involved the plaintiff, Seddon, challenging the decision of the Medical Assessment Panel. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the costs allowable under a costs determination, given the unusual difficulty, complexity, or importance of the matter. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the amount of costs allowable under the costs determination was inadequate due to the special circumstances of the case. The court was required to assess whether the difficulty, complexity, or importance of the case warranted a special costs order under section 56(3) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. This involved examining the nature of the dispute and the efforts undertaken by both parties in resolving it.

The court determined that the case indeed involved unusual difficulty, complexity, and importance, justifying a special costs order. It considered the extensive evidence presented, the numerous issues that required resolution, and the significant amount of work undertaken by the plaintiff’s legal team. The court concluded that the costs awarded under the initial costs determination did not adequately reflect the resources expended and the nature of the litigation. Consequently, the court made special costs orders in favour of the plaintiff, recognising the extraordinary circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made including special costs orders

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.