Transport Accident Commission v Serwylo - [2011] VSCA 305

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2010 0130

TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION
	Applicant
v
MAARA SERWYLO	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	ASHLEY and HARPER JJA and ROSS AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 October 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 October 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 305
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2010] VSC 421 (Kaye J)

---

Accident compensation – Transport accident – Lumbo-sacral spinal impairment – AMA Guides – construction issue – Application for leave to appeal from decision of judge of Trial Division – Leave refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M F Wheelahan SC with Mr D Masel	Solicitor to the Transport Accident Commission
For the Respondent	Dr I R L Freckelton SC with Mr N R Dubrow	Slater & Gordon

ASHLEY JA:

This is the judgment of the Court.

By s 17A(3A)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1986, appeal in this matter is only possible on grant of leave. We refuse leave. In our opinion, despite the comprehensive and very careful submissions advanced by senior counsel for the applicant, the decision sought to be appealed has not been shown to be wrong or at least attended by sufficient doubt as to justify grant of leave.[1]
[1]Counsel for the applicant accepted the applicability of what he described as ‘the Niemann test’ (Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431), the relevance of which, in the context of an application for leave to appeal under s 148(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, was discussed by JD Phillips JA in Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] 3 VR 331, 335-337 [8]-[15]. See also, Myers v Medical Practitioners Board (2007) 18 VR 48, 55-56 [28]-[29] (Warren CJ). Neither of those cases involved an application for leave to appeal under s 17A(3A)(a) of the Supreme Court Act1986, but each is indicative of the correct approach to consideration of such an application.

We consider that the judge’s full and careful reasons[2] - the decisive aspects of which,[3] counsel for the applicant accepted, were valid points to weigh in determination of the competing constructions – express and explain the preferable construction of that part of Chapter 3 of the AMA Guides which was in issue. It is, we add, a measure of the unsatisfactory nature of the document, and of the difficulty faced by the Tribunal and then his Honour, that, as the medical opinions demonstrated, not even doctors, by whom and for whom the Guides were written, could agree as to the proper meaning of DRE Lumbosacral Category IV. Mr Shannon, whose opinion – relied upon by the applicant – differed from the opinions of Messrs Doig and Moran, went so far as to say, in viva voce evidence, that he thought the issue ‘should be referred to the spine group[4] for guidance’, and that he was ‘still of that view’.
[2]Transport Accident Commission v Serwylo [2010] VSC 421.
[3]Ibid…

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 Transport Accident Commission v Serwylo 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: [2011] VSCA 305
Decision Date: 10 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Transport Accident Commission v Serwylo, the applicant, the Transport Accident Commission, sought leave to appeal against a decision of a judge of the Trial Division. The dispute involved compensation for a transport accident that resulted in lumbo-sacral spinal impairment to the respondent, Serwylo. The primary focus of the case was the interpretation and application of the AMA Guides in assessing the degree of impairment resulting from the accident.

The court was required to determine whether the Trial Division judge had erred in the construction of the relevant provisions of the AMA Guides. Specifically, the issue was whether the judge had correctly applied the guidelines in determining the extent of impairment, and if the application of these guidelines led to a just and equitable outcome. The court needed to assess if there were any misinterpretations or misunderstandings of the AMA Guides that warranted an appeal.

The court examined the reasoning employed by the Trial Division judge in applying the AMA Guides. It considered whether the judge's interpretation was consistent with the legislative intent and whether the application of the guidelines resulted in a fair and accurate assessment of the impairment. Ultimately, the court found that the judge had correctly applied the AMA Guides and that the decision was consistent with the relevant legislative framework. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal, upholding the decision of the Trial Division.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Trial Division was affirmed. This decision underscores the importance of correctly interpreting and applying the AMA Guides in cases of transport accident compensation, ensuring that assessments of impairment are both accurate and just.

Orders