Mark Edward Passey v The Registrar of Workers Compensation Commission of NSW & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1032

Mark Edward Passey v The Registrar of Workers Compensation Commission of NSW & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1032

The Appeal Panel's reasons, fairly read, did not demonstrate that it understood and exercised its jurisdiction as a de novo review under ss 327 and 328. It was open to conclude that the Panel confined itself to whether Dr Korbel had demonstrated error and failed to determine afresh what conclusion it would reach on the material before it. That constituted reviewable error on the face of the record, requiring the Panel's order to be quashed and the matter remitted to a freshly constituted Appeal Panel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 of a Workers Compensation Commission Medical Appeal Panel Decision / Hearing of First Amended Summons Seeking Orders Quashing the Medical Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
The Plaintiff's application succeeded; the Appeal Panel's order was quashed and the matter was remitted for determination by a fresh Appeal Panel.
Legal Topics
['medical Assessment Certificate' 'appeal Panel Review' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'permanent Impairment Compensation' 'loss of Efficient Use of Sexual Organs']
['workers Compensation' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['medical Assessment Certificate' 'appeal Panel Review' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'permanent Impairment Compensation' 'loss of Efficient Use of Sexual Organs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under S69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 of a Workers Compensation Commission Medical Appeal Panel Decision / Hearing of First Amended Summons Seeking Orders Quashing the Medical Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Medical Appeal Panel was required to conduct a hearing de novo once the Registrar referred the appeal under ss 327 and 328 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.' 'Whether the Medical Appeal Panel confined itself to whether the approved medical specialist had made an error rather than making its own determination on the material before it.' 'Whether an error of law appeared on the face of the record for the purposes of s69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel's reasons, fairly read, did not demonstrate that it understood and exercised its jurisdiction as a de novo review under ss 327 and 328. It was open to conclude that the Panel confined itself to whether Dr Korbel had demonstrated error and failed to determine afresh what conclusion it would reach on the material before it. That constituted reviewable error on the face of the record, requiring the Panel's order to be quashed and the matter remitted to a freshly constituted Appeal Panel.

Court Disposition

The Plaintiff's application succeeded; the Appeal Panel's order was quashed and the matter was remitted for determination by a fresh Appeal Panel.

Orders

  • ['The order of the Appeal Panel is quashed.' 'The matter is returned for determination according to law by a fresh Appeal Panel established pursuant to s328 of the Act.' "Trent Nathan Pty Ltd is to pay Mr Passey's costs." 'No order is made as to the costs of the Registrar and the Appeal Panel.']