WINGFOOT AUSTRALIA PARTNERS PTY LTD & ANOR APPELLANTS
AND
EYUP KOCAK & ORS RESPONDENTS
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak
[2013] HCA 43
30 October 2013
M52/2013
ORDER
1.Appeal allowed.
2.Set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 23 October 2012 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.
3.The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of this appeal and the application for special leave to appeal.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria
Representation
M F Wheelahan SC with M C Norton for the appellants (instructed by Thomsons Lawyers)
A G Uren QC with A D B Ingram for the first respondent (instructed by Slater & Gordon)
A S Pillay for the second and third respondents (instructed by Moray & Agnew)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak
Administrative law – Availability of certiorari – Legal consequences of Medical Panel's opinion under Accident Compensation Act1985 (Vic) – Where separate proceedings for common law damages and statutory compensation – Whether Medical Panel's opinion on medical questions referred to it in one proceeding required to be adopted and applied in other proceeding – Whether issue estoppel – Whether order in nature of certiorari available.
Administrative law – Statutory obligation to give written statement of reasons – Standard of reasons required – Whether error of law on the face of the record.
Words and phrases – "certiorari", "error of law", "for the purposes of determining any question or matter", "Medical Panel", "medical question", "reasons", "written statement of reasons".
FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE JJ. This appeal raises questions about s 68 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) ("the Act"), under which a Medical Panel must give its opinion on a medical question referred to it and a written statement of its reasons for that opinion.
What is the legal effect of an opinion of a Medical Panel? What standard is required of a written statement of reasons? Can the legal effect of the opinion be quashed by an order in the nature of certiorari for breach of that standard?
The Act
The Act has been amended frequently and extensively. Leaving to one side the minor effect of some transitional provisions, the form of the Act relevant to the appeal is the form in which it existed as at 5 April 2010[1]. It is convenient to refer to the Act in that form in the present tense.
[1]Version No 159D.
Part IV of the Act deals with the payment of statutory compensation. It confers on an injured worker an entitlement to compensation in accordance with the Act[2],…
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 Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43
Case
[2013] HCA 43
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd ("the Employer") against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the legal consequences of a Medical Panel's opinion under the *Accident Compensation Act 1985* (Vic). The dispute arose from a worker's ("the Worker") claim for statutory compensation and common law damages following a neck injury sustained at work. The Worker had initiated two separate proceedings: one for common law damages and another for statutory compensation. A Medical Panel was convened to determine specific medical questions referred to it in the statutory compensation proceeding.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Medical Panel's opinion, formed in the context of the statutory compensation proceeding, was required to be adopted and applied in the separate common law damages proceeding, and whether issue estoppel applied. The Court also considered the availability of an order in the nature of certiorari, specifically whether the Medical Panel's written statement of reasons met the required standard to disclose an error of law on the face of the record.
The High Court reasoned that the *Accident Compensation Act 1985* (Vic) limits the legal effect of a Medical Panel's opinion to the specific question or matter for which it was referred. Therefore, the opinion was not automatically binding on the separate common law damages proceeding, nor did issue estoppel arise. The Court further held that certiorari was unavailable for two reasons: firstly, the Medical Panel's opinion had no continuing legal effect as the matter in which it was given had already been finally resolved, and secondly, the reasons provided by the Medical Panel met the statutory standard, meaning there was no error of law on the face of the record.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal, and ordered that the appeal to that Court be dismissed, thereby reinstating the primary judge's order dismissing the Worker's application for an order in the nature of certiorari. The Employer was ordered to pay the Worker's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 23 October 2012 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.
3. The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of this appeal and the application for special leave to appeal.
Background
Background to the litigation
The Minister has power, as yet unexercised, to issue guidelines as to the procedures of Medical Panels for the purpose of ensuring procedural fairness and facilitating proper administration[36]. The Convenor also has power to give directions as to the arrangement of the business of Panels[37]. That power has been exercised to establish procedures which, amongst other things, contemplate that a party to the referral may choose to submit written submissions or other documents[38]. [36]Section 65(8).[37]Section 65(7).[38]"Convenor's Directions as to the Arrangement of Business and as to the Procedures of Medical Panels", issued 1 March 2008, at [29].Facts The first respondent ("the Worker") was employed by the appellants ("the Employer") when he suffered an injury to his neck at work on 16 October 1996. The extent of that injury and its present effects, if any, are contentious. In May 2009, after experiencing more significant symptoms in his neck than previously, the Worker made a claim for statutory compensation in respect of the injury under Pt IV of the Act. The claim was rejected in May 2009. A subsequent attempt at conciliation was unsuccessful. In November 2009, the Worker commenced two proceedings in the County Court of Victoria relating to that injury to his neck: one seeking leave to bring proceedings for common law damages in respect of the injury ("the serious injury application"); the other seeking a declaration of entitlement in respect of the injury under Pt IV of the Act ("the statutory compensation application"). The statutory compensation application was transferred to the Magistrates' Court, which, at the Employer's request, referred three medical questions to a Medical Panel for determination under s 45(1)(b) of the Act. The Medical Panel constituted for the purpose of opining on those questions comprised a musculoskeletal physician, a neurosurgeon and an orthopaedic surgeon. The Panel met with the Worker, took a medical history from him and conducted a physical examination of him. The Panel viewed an x-ray and an MRI scan of his cervical spine. The Worker provided to the Panel a number of medical reports prepared by his own doctors, who included two neurosurgeons. The solicitors acting for the Worker also made written submissions to the Panel. The Medical Panel in due course gave to the Magistrates' Court a certificate as to its opinion on the medical questions referred and a written statement of reasons for that opinion. The certificate recorded the medical questions referred by the Magistrates' Court and the answers given by the Medical Panel as follows:"Question 1. What is the nature of the [Worker's] neck/cervical spine condition relevant to the alleged neck/cervical spine injury?Answer:The Panel is of the opinion that the [Worker] is suffering from chronic mechanical left cervical spine dysfunction with referred pain to the left shoulder girdle and upper limb, in the absence of objective signs of radiculopathy, on a background of radiological changes of multilevel degeneration and a left C5-6 disc prolapse, but this condition is not relevant to any alleged neck/cervical spine injury.Question 2.Was the [Worker's] employment with the [Employer] on 16 October 1996 a significant contributing factor to his alleged neck/cervical spine injury?Answer:The Panel is of the opinion that the [Worker's] employment with the [Employer] on 16 October 1996 was in fact a significant contributing factor to a now resolved soft tissue injury to the neck, but was not in fact and could not possibly have been a significant contributing factor to any claimed recurrence, aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of any pre-existing neck or cervical spine condition, in any way.Question 3.What is the extent to which any neck/cervical spine condition results from or is materially contributed to by the [Worker's] alleged neck/cervical spine injury on 16 October 1996?Answer:The Panel is of the opinion that the [Worker's] current neck/cervical spine condition does not result from, nor is it materially contributed to by the [Worker's] alleged neck/cervical spine injury of 16 October 1996."The Medical Panel's written statement of reasons for that opinion was a six page document, to some of the detail of which it will be appropriate to return.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE JJ
The answer to the Worker's complaint lies in the implicit finding of the Medical Panel that the Worker on 16 October 1996 sustained only a soft tissue injury, and not an injury to his spine. That finding was one of fact. Whether or not that finding of fact was open to the Medical Panel is a question of law. But no further explanation of the reasoning process adopted by the Medical Panel is necessary to enable a court to address that question. Conclusion The legal effect of an opinion of a Medical Panel on a medical question referred to it is that given by s 68(4) of the Act. The legal effect given by s 68(4) is not that the opinion must be adopted and applied for the purposes of determining all questions or matters arising under or for the purposes of the Act. The legal effect given by s 68(4) is that the opinion must be adopted and applied for the purposes of determining the question or matter, arising under or for the purposes of the Act, in which the medical question arose and in respect of which the medical question was referred to the Medical Panel. The opinion is given no greater legal effect through the operation of issue estoppel. The standard required of the written statement of reasons which s 68(2) of the Act obliges a Medical Panel to give for its opinion is that the statement must explain the actual process of reasoning by which the Medical Panel in fact formed its opinion and must do so in sufficient detail to enable a court to see whether the opinion does or does not involve any error of law. By operation of s 10 of the Administrative Law Act, such reasons as are given by a Medical Panel form part of its opinion and part of the record of that opinion. Such continuing legal effect as an opinion might have may be removed by an order in the nature of certiorari for an error of law on the face of the record where the reasons given do not meet the standard required of a written statement of reasons by s 68(2) of the Act. Certiorari was not available in this case for two independent reasons. One was that the opinion of the Medical Panel had no continuing legal effect. That was because the matter or question, in respect of which the medical question was referred to the Medical Panel, had already been brought to a final resolution. The other was that the reasons given by the Medical Panel for its opinion met the required standard, as the primary judge found. The appeal should be allowed. The substantive orders made by the Court of Appeal should be set aside. In their place, the appeal to the Court of Appeal should be dismissed, with the result that the order of the primary judge dismissing the Worker's application for an order in the nature of certiorari will stand. In accordance with conditions of the grant of special leave to appeal, the orders as to costs made by the Court of Appeal should not be disturbed and the Employer should pay the Worker's costs of this appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE JJ