Wojcik v General Carrying Pty Ltd - [2021] VSC 233

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2020 01760

GIOVANNA WOJCIK	Plaintiff
v
GENERAL CARRYING PTY LTD & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Daly As J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 March 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wojcik v General Carrying Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 233

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Application for extension of time under r 56.02(3) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) – Whether special circumstances exist – Garrett v Legal Services Commissioner [2015] VSC 465, referred to – Application by a worker to quash the opinion of a medical panel concerning the medical condition of the worker – Whether the panel identified an evidentiary basis upon which it could be positively satisfied of its conclusion – Alcoa Holdings Ltd v Lowthian [2011] VSC 245, referred to – Wilson v Liquorland Australia Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 545 and Bazouni v State of Victoria [2019] VSC 407, distinguished – Leemark Fire Protection Pty Ltd v Malios [2014] VSC 654, applied – Whether the panel failed to take into account relevant considerations – Whether the panel took account of irrelevant considerations – Adequacy of reasons – Whether the panel failed to disclose a path of reasoning to its conclusion – Dundar v Bas [2019] VSCA 315, referred to – Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd & Anor v Kocak & Ors (2013) 252 CLR 480, referred to – Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) ss 91(7)(c) and 98C – Application for judicial review dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr ADB Ingram QC Mr L Allan	Maurice Blackburn
For the First Defendant	Mr SA O’Meara QC Ms FC Spencer	IDP Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction and background

The plaintiff (‘Ms Wojcik’) has applied for the Court to quash the opinion of the third defendant, the members of a medical panel (‘Panel’), with respect to a heart condition said to have been aggravated during the course of her employment with the first defendant (‘employer’). As the application was commenced more than sixty days after the date of the Panel’s opinion (‘Opinion’), Ms Wojcik requires an extension of time pursuant to r 56.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (‘Rules’).

Ms Wojcik commenced with the employer as an interstate manifest clerk in or about late 2012. During the course of her employment from the latter part of 2013, Ms Wojcik was subjected to a stressful work environment and suffered bullying and harassment.[1]
[1]For present purposes, it is not necessary to determine whether Ms Wojcik’s allegations are proven, or are accepted as being true. I have proceeded on the basis that Ms Wojcik’s allegations of bullying and harassment are true, and that they have had a deleterious impact upon her health.

In 2006, Ms Wojcik consulted a cardiologist after developing chest…

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 Wojcik v General Carrying Pty Ltd 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: [2021] VSC 233
Decision Date: 5 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the matter of Wojcik v General Carrying Pty Ltd was considered. The applicant, Wojcik, sought to quash the opinion of a medical panel concerning their medical condition. The dispute centred on the administrative process undertaken by the panel and whether the panel's conclusions were justified and legally sound. The panel had determined that Wojcik did not have a compensable injury, a decision Wojcik contested on multiple grounds.

The court was tasked with determining whether special circumstances existed that warranted an extension of time for Wojcik to apply for judicial review, as per rule 56.02(3) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). Additionally, the court had to assess whether the panel's opinion was legally valid, considering whether the panel identified an evidentiary basis for its conclusion, whether relevant considerations were taken into account and irrelevant ones disregarded, and whether the panel provided adequate reasons for its decision.

The court found that Wojcik had not demonstrated special circumstances warranting an extension of time for the application. Regarding the merits of the application, the court held that the panel had indeed identified an evidentiary basis for its conclusion and had taken into account relevant considerations while disregarding irrelevant ones. The court further determined that the panel's reasons were adequate, as they disclosed a path of reasoning to the conclusion reached. The court ultimately dismissed Wojcik's application for judicial review.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time was dismissed, and the application for judicial review was also dismissed. Costs were awarded to General Carrying Pty Ltd.

Orders