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

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 1
Case No:	CIV:2010/2011	Heard:	15 DECEMBER 2011
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	10/01/12
No of pages:	31	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Jurisdictional errors established Decision quashed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RAOUL THOMAS SEDDON MEDICAL ASSESSMENT PANEL SHANE MELVILLE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION DIRECTORATE MIRVAC (WA) PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Administrative law Application for order absolute Jurisdictional error Whether jurisdictional errors arise from reasons given by the Medical Assessment Panel Whether the Medical Assessment Panel failed to take into account relevant evidence Whether the Medical Assessment Panel acted beyond jurisdiction by making an impermissible determination of causation Whether the Medical Assessment Panel failed to give adequate reasons for decision Administrative law Privative clause Section 145E of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) provides that a 'decision' of a medical assessment panel 'is not amenable to judicial review' Whether s 145E excludes judicial review for jurisdictional error in the making of a purported decision
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Injuries Management Act 1981 (WA), s 93D, s 145A, s 145C, s 145D, s 145E, s 145F, s 175, s 210, s 240, sch 2
Case References:	Andreassen v Rural West Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 265 Andrews v Styrap (1872) 26 LT (NS) 704 Attorney-General (Vic) v Commonwealth [1945] HCA 30; (1945) 71 CLR 237 Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASCA 131 Bloomfield v Liebherr Australia Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 154 Button v Evans (No 2) [1984] 3 NSWLR 191 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs [1992] HCA 64; (1992) 176 CLR 1 Donges v Ratcliffe [1975] 1 NSWLR 501 Ex parte Hopwood (1850) 15 QB 121; (1850) 117 ER 404 Hockey v Yelland [1984] HCA 72; (1984) 157 CLR 124 Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531 Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown [2011] HCA 22; (2011) 242 CLR 647 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; (2002) 209 CLR 597 Pallot v Harrison (Unreported, WASC, Library No 950261, 12 May 1995) Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 Public Service Association of South Australia Incorporated v Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia [2011] HCA Trans 149 R v Justices of Derbyshire (1759) 2 Keny 299, (1759) 96 ER 1189 R v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd [1922] 2 AC 128 Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference [2002] HCA 16; (2002) 209 CLR 372 Re The Medical Assessment Panel; Ex parte Ansett Australia Ltd v The Medical Assessment Panel (1998) 19 WAR 395 Seddon v Medical Assessment Panel [2011] WASC 237 The Commonwealth v Baume…

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
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Seddon commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the Medical Assessment Panel, seeking a declaration that the Panel's decision was invalid due to jurisdictional errors and an order quashing the Panel's decision. The Panel had determined that Seddon was not entitled to compensation for his medical condition. The parties disputed whether the Panel's decision was amenable to judicial review due to a privative clause in the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). The central issue before the court was whether the privative clause in s 145E of the Act precluded judicial review of the Panel's decision for jurisdictional error.

The court considered the nature of jurisdictional errors and the effect of the privative clause. It found that jurisdictional errors had occurred, as the Panel failed to take into account relevant evidence and made an impermissible determination of causation. The court further held that the privative clause in s 145E did not exclude judicial review for jurisdictional error in the making of a purported decision. The Panel's failure to provide adequate reasons for its decision was also a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the Panel's decision was quashed, and the Panel was required to reconsider Seddon's claim for compensation.

In light of the court's findings, it ordered that the Panel's decision be quashed and that Seddon's claim be remitted to the Panel for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that administrative decisions are made within the jurisdiction and with adequate reasons, and that privative clauses do not preclude judicial review for jurisdictional error.

Orders

Orders of the court

Jurisdictional errors established

Decision quashed

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.