UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd v Attard - [2016] NSWSC 911

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: The UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd (formerly United Group Rail Services Pty Ltd) v Attard [2016] NSWSC 911
Hearing dates: 3 March 2016
Date of orders: 01 July 2016
Decision date: 01 July 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
(1) An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of the Second Defendant of 13 April 2015 referring the matter to an Appeal Panel.

(2) An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Certificate of the Third Defendant dated 24 June 2015.

(3) An order in the nature of mandamus remitting the matter to the Second Defendant for the purpose of determining according to law whether, on the face of the application filed by the First Defendant and any submissions made in relation to it, whether any ground of appeal specified in s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) has been made out and, if so, for the purpose of appointing a different panel to determine the First Defendant’s Application to Appeal against the decision of the Approved Medical Specialist.

(4) The First Defendant should pay the costs of the Plaintiff.
(5) The First Defendant should have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951 (NSW) if otherwise so entitled.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – jurisdictional error - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – injured worker – assessment of whole person impairment – Registrar refers medical dispute to appeal panel - whether demonstrable error in the medical assessment certificate – error asserted to be the percentage whole person impairment assessed by medical assessor – no demonstrable error established - appeal panel identifies other errors in certificate of assessor – whether jurisdictional error in so doing - decisions of Registrar and appeal panel quashed
Legislation Cited: Suitors Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: George v Wombo Lane Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 660
Haroun v Rail Corporation NSW [2008] NSWSC 160
Merza v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission [2006] NSWSC 939
New South Wales Police Force v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1792
Pitsonis v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission [2008] NSWCA 88; (2008) 73 NSWLR 366
Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v Dickinson [2016] NSWSC 101
Zahed v IAG Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2016] NSWCA 55
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd (formerly United Group Rail Services Pty Ltd) (Plaintiff)
Daniel Attard (First Defendant)
The Registrar, Workers Compensation Commission of NSW (Second Defendant)
John Wynyard, Dr Catherine Drummond, Dr Tommassino Mastroianni constituting the Medical Appeal Panel (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Allars SC (Plaintiff)
R Stanton (First Defendant)
Submitting appearances (Second & Third Defendants)
Solicitors:
Cantle Carmichael Legal (Plaintiff)
Law Partners Compensation Lawyers (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitors Office…

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 UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd v Attard 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: [2016] NSWSC 911
Decision Date: 01 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd brought a judicial review action against Attard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, challenging the decision of the Registrar of the Workers Compensation Regulatory Authority. The dispute centred around the assessment of whole person impairment of an injured worker under the Workers Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The Registrar had referred a medical dispute to an appeal panel, which subsequently reviewed the medical assessment certificate. The primary issue before the court was whether the appeal panel had identified a jurisdictional error by pointing out other errors in the medical assessment certificate that were not the subject of the referral by the Registrar.

The court held that the referral to the appeal panel was limited to the percentage whole person impairment assessed by the medical assessor. The appeal panel identified additional errors in the certificate that were not the subject of the referral. The court found that the appeal panel had overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries by considering these additional errors. The Registrar's decision to refer the matter to the appeal panel was based on the percentage whole person impairment, and any consideration of other errors was beyond the scope of the referral. The court concluded that the appeal panel's decision was a jurisdictional error because it extended beyond the scope of the referral from the Registrar.

As a result of this finding, the court quashed the decisions of both the Registrar and the appeal panel. The referral to the appeal panel was limited to the percentage whole person impairment, and the appeal panel's consideration of other errors in the medical assessment certificate was a jurisdictional error. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to the scope of referrals in administrative law proceedings, particularly in the context of workers' compensation assessments. The court's ruling underscored the necessity for administrative bodies to confine their review to the specific issues referred to them, and to avoid venturing into areas beyond the scope of their mandate.

Orders