15 Dec 2015
The appeal is dismissed because the challenge to the referral into the Vocational Independence process and complaints about the accuracy of reports are not matters properly determined on an IRP appeal; those substantive issues must be pursued in the separate VI review/appeal process and the reviewer did not err.
29 Apr 2003
The court held that Judge Ongley made factual findings that the appellant agreed rehabilitation was complete and therefore no modification of the IRP or further vocational rehabilitation was required; those findings did not raise questions of law and consequently leave to appeal to the High Court was declined.
6 Jul 1999
The Court held the assessor conducted the required consultation under the regulations and the claimant's signature did not convert the assessment into an agreed IRP; although payments made without an approved IRP are technically unauthorised under s19(1), the respondent's discretionary assessment was not shown to be manifestly wrong and the Court will not substitute its own view, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
11 Mar 1998
Where no Individual Rehabilitation Programme had been prepared or put to the claimant and no specific requirement under the Act was imposed, the respondent could not lawfully treat the claimant as having unreasonably refused to agree to an IRP and cancel entitlements under s73(2); the appellant's explanation that an IRP was unnecessary was reasonable and termination was unlawful, requiring reinstatement of weekly compensation.