Thomas Gray v Geoff Groom Building Pty Ltd - [2019] NSWSC 1081

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Thomas Gray v Geoff Groom Building Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1081
Hearing dates: 14 August 2019
Decision date: 22 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Leeming JA
Decision:
Amended summons filed 27 March 2019 dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: Judicial review – application to set aside decision of Medical Appeal Panel – need to make out jurisdictional error or error of law on face of record – significance of distinction – whether Panel empowered to rely on medical examination by one of its members – significance of “clinical judgment” – whether Panel failed to make findings or give reasons – whether Panel failed to address substantial argument – whether Panel misapplied Guidelines – application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 66, 151H
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 327, 331
Cases Cited: AAI Ltd trading as GIO as agent for the Nominal Defendant v McGiffen [2016] NSWCA 229; 77 MVR 348
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr (2012) 83 NSWLR 302; [2012] NSWCA 13
Campbelltown City Council v Vegal (2006) 67 NSWLR 372; [2006] NSWCA 284
Estate of Heinrich Christian Joseph Brockmann v Brockmann Metal Roofing Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 235
Henderson v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2013] NSWCA 480; 66 MVR 69
Minister for Health v Thomson (1985) 8 FCR 213
Roger v De Gelder [2015] NSWCA 211; 71 MVR 514
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Thomas Gray (Plaintiff)
Geoffrey Groom trading as Geoff Groom Building (First defendant)
Workers Compensation Commission of NSW (Second defendant)
Medical Appeal Panel of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW (Third defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

EG Romaniuk SC and S Moffet (Plaintiff)
D Stanton (First defendant)

Solicitors:
Walker Law Group (Plaintiff)
Rankin Ellison Lawyers (First defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second and third defendants – submitting appearance)

File Number(s): 2019/87301
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

LEEMING JA: Mr Thomas Gray has invoked this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) to set aside the decision of a Medical Appeal Panel of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW dated 26 February 2019. That Panel allowed an appeal against the decision of an Approved Medical Specialist, who had found a whole person impairment of 13%. The Panel assessed Mr Gray’s whole person impairment at 14%. However, so called “modified common law damages” under Part 5 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) are only available if the degree of permanent impairment is at least 15%: s 151H. Mr Gray’s submissions observed that “the gateway to a claim for ‘work injury damages’ opens if the Plaintiff secures an assessment of whole person impairment of 15% or greater”. Hence, the present proceedings.
It is common ground that this Court’s examination is confined, in that Mr Gray needs to make out a case of jurisdictional error or alternatively error of law on the face of the record. The amended…

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 Thomas Gray v Geoff Groom Building Pty Ltd 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: [2019] NSWSC 1081
Decision Date: 22 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Thomas Gray, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Medical Appeal Panel, which was part of Geoff Groom Building Pty Ltd. Gray challenged the Panel’s decision to deny his application for medical benefits, contending that the Panel had acted beyond its authority and made errors in its assessment. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Panel's decision contained any jurisdictional errors or legal mistakes that would warrant setting it aside.

The central legal issues before the court involved whether the Panel was empowered to rely on a medical examination conducted by one of its members and whether the Panel adequately exercised its clinical judgment in reaching its decision. Additionally, the court considered whether the Panel had failed to make necessary findings or provide adequate reasons for its decision, whether it had disregarded substantial arguments presented by Gray, and whether it had misapplied the relevant guidelines in its assessment.

The court examined the Panel’s decision and concluded that it had not made any jurisdictional errors or legal mistakes. The Panel was deemed to have the authority to rely on the examination conducted by one of its members, as this was within the scope of its clinical judgment. The court found that the Panel had made sufficient findings and provided adequate reasons for its decision. It was also determined that the Panel had addressed the substantial arguments put forward by Gray and had not misapplied the relevant guidelines. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

As a result of the court’s decision, the application was dismissed, and the Panel's decision remained in place. There were no orders made to set aside the Panel's decision, and Gray's challenge was unsuccessful.

Orders