Papamanos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

[2014] VSCA 167

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Accident Compensation
2. › Serious injury application
3. › Leave to bring common law proceedings
4. › Permanent severe mental or behavioural disturbance or disorder
5. › Whether consequences of psychiatric injury severe
6. › Assessment by judge on whole of evidence
7. › Need to disentangle physical and psychiatric injuries and consequences
8. › Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), ss 134AB(37), 134AB(38)(c), (d), (h), (i)
1. Appeal
2. › County Court
3. › Serious injury application
4. › Credibility findings
5. › Whether trial judge erred in assessing credit by reference to surveillance evidence
6. › Whether misdescription of evidence material to credit findings
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Reasons for judgment
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Whether inadequate reasons given for non-acceptance of medical evidence
5. › Context of case as argued at first instance

Quick Take

In serious injury applications under s 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), where a worker claims both physical injury under paragraph (a) and psychiatric injury under paragraph (c), the worker bears the burden of disentangling the physical and psychiatric consequences. A failure to do so at first instance, particularly where the psychiatric case is run as a secondary and barely argued alternative, will preclude complaint on appeal about the trial judge's treatment of intertwined physical and psychiatric evidence. The adequacy of reasons must be assessed in the context of the case as argued.