State Trustees v Transport Accident Commission - [2000] VSC 494

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
PRACTICE COURT	Not Restricted

No. 7028 of 2000

STATE TRUSTEES AS GUARDIAN FOR COLIN DICKINSON	Applicant
v.
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 NOVEMBER 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 NOVEMBER 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	STATE TRUSTEES v. TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 494

---

CATCHWORDS: Application for leave to appeal from decision of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – No arguable error of law on part of Tribunal – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr. R. Gorton Q.C. and Mr. J. Gorton	Riordan & Partners
For the Respondent	Mr. G. Nash Q.C. and Mr. G. Lewis	T.A.C. Law Pty. Ltd.

HIS HONOUR:

This is an appeal from an order of a Master of this Court made 23 October 2000, whereby the Master dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal from an order of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. On 5 September 2000, the Tribunal had ordered that a determination of the Transport Accident Commission made on 25 June 1999, to the effect that at that time the appellant had an impairment of 30 per cent within the meaning of the Transport Accident Act be set aside, and that there be substituted for it a determination that the appellant suffered a 45 per cent "of permanent impairment as a result of the transport accident on 6 January 1999".

It is contended by the appellant that the Tribunal erred in law by

1.        Failing to determine that Colin Dickinson's impairment was at least 50 per cent under part 3 of category 3, "Disturbances of Complex, Integrated Cerebral Functions" on page 63 of the American Medical Association Guides, 2nd edition;
2.        Failing to consider and to determine in accordance with law the appellant's submissions as to the construction of the criteria set out in part 3 of category 3 "Disturbances of Complex, Integrated Cerebral Functions" on page 63 of the American Medical Association Guides, 2nd edition; and
3.        Failing to give proper reasons in relation to the appellant's submissions as to the construction of the criteria set out in part 3 of category 3 "Disturbance of Complex, Integrated Cerebral Functions" on page 63 of the American Medical Association Guides, 2nd edition.

It has long been the practice in this Court and the High Court, not to give reasons for granting leave to appeal in a particular case or for refusing leave to appeal. The matter was adverted to by Fullagar, J. in Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v. Kilpatrick Green Pty Ltd (1992) 2 VR 505.

Although that was a case in which the Full Court was determining an appeal from the decision of a single Judge of the Court whereby the Judge had refused leave to a party to appeal from an interim award of an arbitrator, his Honour's observations are equally applicable to an appeal from the decision of a Master of the Court refusing a…

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 State Trustees v Transport Accident Commission 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: [2000] VSC 494
Decision Date: 14 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The respondents, State Trustees, sought to appeal the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed their claim for compensation against the Transport Accident Commission. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of certain statutory provisions and the extent of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in reviewing decisions made by the Commission.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and whether there was an arguable error of law on the part of the Tribunal that warranted the court granting leave to appeal. The respondents argued that the Tribunal had misapplied the law, leading to an unjust outcome, and that the Tribunal's decision was not supported by the evidence.

The court examined the reasoning and findings of the Tribunal and found that the Tribunal had properly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence and that there was no arguable error of law on the part of the Tribunal. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

Orders