ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Medical panel – Panel provided opinion on medical questions referred by County Court – Statement of reasons requested – Reasons inadequate – Whether inadequacy of reasons constitutes error of law – Whether Panel’s function judicial or administrative – Whether statute enlarged principles of natural justice – Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic) ss 3, 7, 8, 10; Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) Part III, Division 3.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellant
Mr M O’Loghlen QC with Mr G Wicks
Slater & Gordon
For the First and Second Respondents
Mr D Masel
Monahan + Rowell
For the Third and Fourth Respondents
Mr M F Wheelahan SC with Mr M F Fleming
Thomson Playford Cutlers
MAXWELL P ASHLEY JA BYRNE AJA:
This appeal raises an important question about the nature and effect of the obligation imposed on a tribunal by s 8(1) of the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic) (the ‘ALA’) to give reasons for a decision. A related question concerns the proper characterisation of the function performed by a medical panel when giving an opinion upon medical questions referred to it under s 45(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (the ‘ACA’).
For reasons which follow, we respectfully agree with the trial judge that, where a medical panel is requested under s 8(1) of the ALA to provide a statement of reasons for its opinion, the provision of an inadequate statement of reasons is not, by itself, an error of law. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.
Background
The background facts may be stated shortly. The appellant brought a claim in the County Court for compensation under the ACA. A judge of that court subsequently referred seven medical questions to a medical panel, pursuant to s 45(1) of the ACA. A panel was constituted, comprising the first and second respondents (the ‘Panel’), and in due course the Panel provided its opinion upon the referred questions.
As a ‘person affected’ by the Panel’s decision, the appellant made a request of the Panel under s 8(1) of the ALA that it provide a statement of reasons for its opinion. Being dissatisfied with the reasons provided in response to that request, the appellant subsequently commenced a proceeding in this Court, under O 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic), seeking judicial review of the Panel’s decision. The grounds relied upon were want of procedural fairness and inadequacy of reasons. It was not contended that such reasons as were provided disclosed any error of law. Kyrou J dismissed the application.
The…
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 Sherlock v Lloyd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sherlock v Lloyd [2010] VSCA 122
Case
[2010] VSCA 122
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Sherlock v Lloyd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Sherlock, and the defendant, Lloyd, a member of a medical panel. The dispute arose from the medical panel's opinion on medical questions referred to them by the County Court, which the plaintiff found inadequate in terms of the reasons provided. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the panel's decision, arguing that the inadequacies in the reasons provided constituted an error of law. The central legal issues before the court were whether the inadequacy of the reasons constituted an error of law, whether the function of the panel was judicial or administrative, and whether the relevant statute had enlarged the principles of natural justice.
The court considered whether the panel's function was judicial or administrative, noting that the medical panel was established under statute and its role involved providing expert medical opinions. The court determined that the panel's function was primarily administrative, as it involved the application of expertise rather than the exercise of judicial power. The court also examined whether the statute had enlarged the principles of natural justice, finding that the statute did not explicitly require the panel to provide detailed reasons for its decisions. The court concluded that, given the administrative nature of the panel's function and the absence of statutory requirements for detailed reasons, the inadequacy of the reasons did not constitute an error of law warranting judicial review.
Based on its findings, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review. The court held that the medical panel's function was administrative, and the statute did not impose a requirement for detailed reasons. Therefore, the inadequacy of the reasons provided by the panel did not amount to an error of law. The court did not order any specific relief, as the plaintiff's application was dismissed on the grounds that no error of law was found.