Legal Research
Cases
Sensis Pty Ltd v Jones

Sensis Pty Ltd v Jones

Case [2018] VSC 754 6 December 2018

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2018 01168

SENSIS PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
SABRINA JONES	First Defendant
PROFESSOR PETER DISLER	Second Defendant
DR JULIAN FREIDIN	Third Defendant
DR RICHARD TRAVERS	Fourth Defendant
KEITH ELSNER	Fifth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 September 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 December 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sensis Pty Ltd v Jones
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 754

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW — Medical Panel — Whether injury significant contributing factor to injury — Whether mandatory matters taken into account — Whether statutory test applied — Whether reasons adequate — Accident Compensation Act 1985 ss 5, 5(1B), 82.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M Fleming QC with Ms S Gold	Wisewould Mahony
For the First Defendant	Ms J Forbes QC with Mr J Angenent	Henry Carus + Associates

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Sensis Pty Ltd (‘Sensis’) seeks judicial review of a Medical Panel Opinion certified in writing and dated 13 February 2018 (‘Opinion’). The Panel comprised the second to fifth defendants, who adopted a Hardiman approach for this proceeding. The Panel’s Opinion determined the nature and cause of injuries sustained by the first defendant, Sabrina Jones, on 20 March 2013 in the course of her employment with Sensis.

Background

From September 2008, Ms Jones was employed by Sensis. She initially worked in a telemarketing role, but was promoted through various positions to become a senior account manager. Her duties were to work with specific clients on designing advertising campaigns, which involved visiting clients and speaking with them on the phone or via computers. She worked long hours of work at the computer typing with both hands, using a mouse, and referring to attached documents.

Ms Jones’ claim is that on 20 March 2013 she sustained an injury to her neck, back and left arm in the course of her employment with Sensis. She claimed that the injury occurred while she was sitting at her desk and typing at her computer. She twisted her neck and body to the left side of the desk to look at some notes and as she turned back to the computer she developed severe pain over the left scapula, so severe that she ‘screamed’ and ‘thought the shoulder blade had come out’.[1] This pain persisted despite receiving medical treatment. In her Worker’s Injury Claim Form she described the incident as:

Working at my desk typing and reached over to my notepad and felt a sharp pain in my arm and shortly after in my back and neck.

[1]Panel’s Reasons for Opinion, 4 (‘Reasons’); Court Book, 21 (‘CB’).

On 19 April 2013, Ms Jones lodged a claim for weekly payments and medical and like expenses pursuant to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (‘the Act’). The claim was accepted by the authorised agent of the Victoria WorkCover Authority (‘Agent’) who acted for Sensis. Ms Jones received weekly compensation…

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 Sensis Pty Ltd v Jones

Details

AGLC: Sensis Pty Ltd v Jones [2018] VSC 754
Case: [2018] VSC 754
Decision Date: 6 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sensis Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision made by a Medical Panel under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The dispute centred on whether the Medical Panel had properly considered the significance of a particular injury in relation to the overall assessment of the claimant’s injuries, and if all mandatory considerations were duly taken into account. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Medical Panel had correctly identified and considered the significance of the specific injury in relation to the overall assessment, if the statutory requirements were properly applied, and if the panel provided adequate reasons for their decision. It was also necessary to determine if the panel had failed to consider relevant matters that were mandatory under the Act.

In delivering the judgment, the Court found that the Medical Panel had indeed failed to adequately address the significance of the specific injury in relation to the overall assessment. The panel also did not properly apply the statutory test and neglected to take into account certain mandatory matters. Furthermore, the reasons provided by the panel were insufficient. Consequently, the Court allowed the application for judicial review and quashed the decision of the Medical Panel.

The Court ordered the matter be remitted back to the Medical Panel for re-determination, ensuring all statutory requirements are complied with and all relevant considerations are properly addressed. The panel was directed to provide detailed and adequate reasons for their decision in line with the statutory provisions.

Orders