Legal Research
Cases
Voss v Downes-Brydon

Voss v Downes-Brydon

Case [2020] VSC 815 3 December 2020

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Reasons for Decision

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2019 04344

WENDY JOY VOSS	Plaintiff
v
DR JENNY DOWNES-BRYDON	First Defendant
PROFESSOR PETER GATES	Second Defendant
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR MIRON GOLDWASSER	Third Defendant
DR JULIAN FREIDIN	Fourth Defendant
ACE AIRPORT PARKING PTY LTD	Fifth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 June 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Voss v Downes-Brydon
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 815

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Medical Panel – Opinion as to worker’s medical condition – Whether Panel obliged to have regard to evidence of chronic pain condition – Relevant considerations – Findings of inconsistency in worker’s evidence – Whether Panel denied worker natural justice – Whether Panel’s determination was unreasonable, irrational or illogical – Whether reasons adequate – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, s 284.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Czarnota	Shine Lawyers
For the Fifth Defendant	Mr J Gorton QC, with Ms F Spencer	Thomson Geer

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Ms Wendy Voss seeks judicial review of the Opinion dated 3 August 2019 (‘Opinion’) of a Medical Panel constituted by four doctors, the first to fourth named defendants (‘Panel’), under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (‘the Act’).

Ms Voss seeks orders quashing the Panel’s Opinion and remitting the referred medical questions to a differently constituted Medical Panel to be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Background

Ms Voss was born in 1971 and has four adult children. She has had various working roles, including office administrative roles, cleaning, hospitality, and as a driving instructor. In June 2012, she commenced work as a car park attendant and cashier for the fifth defendant, Ace Airport Parking Pty Ltd at Tullamarine Airport (‘Ace’). I will refer to Ace as the defendant. She worked around 36 hours a week. Her duties included liaising with courtesy bus drivers, organising valet parking, coordinating the car wash services, assisting customers to enter and exit the car park via a boom gate, and working on a computer.[1]
[1]Transcript of Proceeding, Voss v Downes-Brydon (Supreme Court of Victoria, S ECI 2019 04344, Ginnane J, 17 June 2020) 9 (‘T’).

On 14 February 2013, Ms Voss was working at Ace’s premises when a security boom gate lowered down on her, striking her head and right shoulder. The Panel described her account of the incident as follows:

Ms Voss said that as she was running back to the office to answer the phone she passed through a boom gate which lowering and hit her on the head. She said it hit a hair clip which she was using to fasten her hair on the right side of her head and then scraped down the side of her face into the top of her right shoulder. She said that she was “knocked to crouching” before being pushed down by the gate (the incident).
She…

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.

Continue reading Voss v Downes-Brydon

Details

AGLC: Voss v Downes-Brydon [2020] VSC 815
Case: [2020] VSC 815
Decision Date: 3 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Voss v Downes-Brydon involved a challenge to a decision by a Medical Panel under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. The applicant, Voss, sought judicial review of the Panel's determination regarding his medical condition, specifically whether the Panel was obliged to consider evidence of his chronic pain condition. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Panel had an obligation to consider the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain condition, the relevance of findings of inconsistency in his evidence, whether the Panel denied the applicant natural justice, and whether the Panel's determination was unreasonable, irrational, or illogical. Additionally, the court examined whether the Panel's reasons were adequate.

The court held that the Panel was not obliged to consider the evidence of chronic pain, as it did not directly relate to the worker's ability to perform work. The court found that the Panel's reasons were adequate and that there was no denial of natural justice. The determination was not unreasonable, irrational, or illogical, and the Panel's assessment was well within its discretion. Therefore, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application for judicial review.

Orders