Devaney v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors

[2021] VSCA 168

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Medical panel
4. › Workplace injury
5. › Whether panel's conclusions open on the evidence
6. › Whether conclusions irrational or illogical
7. › Whether panel failed to apply correct meaning of 'injury'
8. › Whether panel's reasons adequately disclosed reasoning path
9. › Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic), ss 3, 274, 303
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Standard of review
4. › No evidence ground
5. › Medical panel not bound by rules of evidence
6. › Height of 'no evidence' bar where tribunal may inform itself as it thinks fit
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Medical panel
5. › Standard required by Wingfoot
6. › Whether reasons sufficient to disclose path of reasoning and enable detection of error of law
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Judicial review of medical panel opinion
4. › Whether proposed grounds of appeal have sufficient merit

Quick Take

The adequacy of reasons standard for medical panels under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 requires only that reasons be sufficient to explain the panel's path of reasoning and enable a court to detect error of law; a panel is not required to explain why it did not reach an alternative opinion. The 'no evidence' bar is set very high where a panel is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself as it thinks fit. Whether Li-style unreasonableness review applies to factual conclusions (as distinct from discretionary decisions) by medical panels remains an open question in Victoria.