Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Eyup Kocak [2013] HCA 43

Today the High Court unanimously allowed an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria in the case of Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Eyup Kocak [2013] HCA 43, holding that certiorari was not available to quash an opinion of a Medical Panel made under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (the Act) where that opinion had no continuing legal consequences.

Facts of the Case

The first respondent was employed by the appellants when he suffered an injury at work.  The respondent commenced two proceedings relating to that injury:

• one seeking leave to bring proceedings for common law damages (the serious injury application); and
• under the Act, a declaration of entitlement to medical or like expenses (the statutory compensation application). 

The Magistrates' Court of Victoria, which heard the statutory compensation application, referred three medical questions to a Medical Panel for determination under the Act.  Upon receiving from the Medical Panel a certificate of the Medical Panel's opinion and written statement of reasons, the Magistrates' Court made orders by consent to "adopt" and "apply" the opinion, and to dismiss the statutory compensation application.

Progression Through the Courts

When the serious injury application came before the County Court of Victoria, the respondent contended that it was bound by the medical opinion used and given for the statutory compensation application.

The applicant applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria for an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the opinion of the Medical Panel including on grounds that the Medical Panel failed to give adequate reasons for its opinion. 

The application was dismissed but the applicant successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal.  By special leave to appeal, the respondent appealed to the High Court.

The High Court Application

The High Court unanimously held that inadequacy of reasons is an error of law on the face of the record of an opinion of a Medical Panel for which certiorari will ordinarily be available.  An order in the nature of certiorari was not, however, available in the circumstances of this case where the opinion of the Medical Panel had no continuing legal consequences as matter which comprised the controversy between the parties to the statutory compensation application was brought to a conclusion when that application was dismissed.

The Court also held that the Magistrates' Court's adoption and application of the opinion of the Medical Panel when dismissing the statutory compensation application created no issue estoppel binding the parties in the serious injury application.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.