Legal Research
Cases
Total Transport Pty Ltd v Tasiopoulos

Total Transport Pty Ltd v Tasiopoulos

Link copied

Case Copied 30 April 2019 20 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2017 05127

TOTAL TRANSPORT PTY LTD ACN 122 600 837	Plaintiff
v
COSTAS TASIOPOULOS	First Defendant
and
DR GIANNI D’ORTENZIO, DR JENNIFER HARMER, MR JOHN BOURKE and PROF LEANNE ROWE	Second to Fifth Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 February 2019; further written submissions received 28 March 2019 and 2 April 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 April 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Total Transport Pty Ltd v Tasiopoulos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 266

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Opinion of a Medical Panel – Panel found that worker’s physical injuries had resolved, but that worker had an incapacity for his pre-injury employment – Whether Panel’s opinion not open, or grossly illogical or irrational – Whether Panel’s reasons adequate – Proceeding dismissed – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) ss 3, 160, 313.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr MF Fleming QC with Mr R Kumar	Russell Kennedy
For the First Defendant	Mr PH Solomon QC with Mr J Valiotis	Zaparas Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

In November 2015, Costas Tasiopoulos found employment as a truck jockey with Total Transport Pty Ltd. His work involved travelling in a furniture removal truck driven by another worker, collecting and loading furniture into the truck and then unloading the furniture at its destination. On 11 December 2015, he slipped and fell off the back of the truck. He hurt his right leg, ankle and foot in the fall, and also claims to have hurt his lower back and his right shoulder. He did not work for Total Transport again.

Mr Tasiopoulos made a claim for compensation under the Workplace Injury, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) (WIRC Act) for the injuries to his right leg, ankle and foot. This claim was accepted by Total Transport’s claims agent, which rejected subsequent claims by Mr Tasiopoulos for compensation for injuries to his lower back and right shoulder. The claims agent terminated Mr Tasiopoulos’ weekly payments from 20 May 2016, and stopped paying his medical and like expenses from 3 June 2016, on the grounds that his compensable injury had resolved, and that he no longer had any, or any work-related, incapacity for work.

In May 2017, Mr Tasiopoulos commenced a proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court, claiming weekly payments of compensation from 20 May 2016 and payment of medical and like expenses from 3 June 2016. In his statement of claim, he alleges that he is incapacitated for work, that his incapacity continues to be materially contributed to by an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment, and that he continues to suffer from injuries as a result of the fall. The injuries claimed are injuries to his right leg, ankle and foot, his lower back and his right shoulder, and consequential psychological injury, consequential chronic pain syndrome/disorder and…

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 Total Transport Pty Ltd v Tasiopoulos 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] VSC 266
Decision Date: 30 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Total Transport Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by a Medical Panel appointed under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic). The Panel found that the worker, Tasiopoulos, had resolved his physical injuries, but he had an incapacity for his pre-injury employment. The central issue was whether the Panel's opinion was not open, or grossly illogical or irrational, and whether the Panel's reasons were adequate. The court had to determine if there was an error of law on the face of the record that warranted the application being allowed.

The court examined the reasoning of the Panel, focusing on the adequacy of the reasons provided and whether the Panel's opinion was open to it. The court noted that the Panel had considered the medical evidence and had formed a view that Tasiopoulos's injuries had resolved but that he had an incapacity for his pre-injury employment. The court held that the Panel's opinion was open and that the reasons provided were adequate. The court found no error of law on the face of the record.

The court dismissed the proceeding, finding that the Panel's opinion was open, the reasons were adequate, and there was no error of law. The decision of the Panel was therefore affirmed, and the application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

Orders