hukildaspida, on 17 February 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY
No. M 176 of2010
BETWEEN:
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FILED
MAURICE BLACKBURN
CASHMAN
Appellant
10 -iFEB 2011 - and-
FIONA HELEN BROWN
THE REGISTRY MELBOURNE Respondent
APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS
20 Part I - Internet certification:
30
1. These submissions are in a fonn suitable for publication on the internet.
Part 11 - Concise statement of issues:
2. The issue which arises from the grounds of appeal is -
• Does s 134AB(15) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vie), either alone,
or in combination with s 68(4), operate so that a worker, whose degree of
impairment has been assessed under s 104B of the Act at 30% or more, is
deemed to have suffered a "serious injury" for the purpose of the
adjudication of the issues arising in a damages proceeding brought pursuant
to s 134AB, with the consequence that defendants are prohibited from
conducting their case in the manner specified by the orders of the Court of
Appeal?
Part III ,... Judiciary Act, s 78B:
3. The appellant has ·considered whether any notice should be given in compliance
with s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), and considers that no such notice
should be given.
Filed on behalf of: The appellant
Minter Ellison
Lawyers
Rialto Towers
525 Collins Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
DX 204, Melbourne
Tel: (03) 86082000
Fax: (03) 8608 1000
Ref: CXB:DSP (Carmen Buccheri)
[email protected]
20
2
Part IV - Citation of the reasons for jndgment of the Court of Appeal:
4. The reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal are not reported. They are
available on Austlii, where the reasons may be downloaded in RTF format:
Brumar (Vic) Pt' Ltd v Norris; Brown v Maurice Blackburn Casbman [2010]
VSCA 206 (25 August 2010).
Part V - Narrative statement of relevant facts:
5. The appellant is a firm of legal practitioners. In 2003 the respondent was
employed by the appellant as a salaried partner and as the head of its family law
practice in Melbourne.
6. The respondent claims that from 8 January 2003 to 17 November 2003 she was
"[Ystematically undermined, harassed and humiliated' by a fellow employee, and that
complaints and requests to the managing partner for intervention went
unanswered and that, as a consequence, she suffered psychological injury and
associated loss and damage.
7. On about 12 December 2005, and pursuant to s 98C of the Accident Compensation
Act, the respondent made a claim for statutory compensation for non-economic
loss. The amount of compensation payable to the respondent was determined,
in part, by the assessment of the respondent's degree of impairment in
accordance with s 91 of the Act, which required that the assessment be made in
accordance with the AMA Guides (4'h edition) as modified by s 91, and in
particular as modified by s 91(6) which substituted for Chapter 14 of the AMA
Guides, the Clinical Guidelines to the Rating of Psychiattic Impairment'.
8. On or about 23 February 2006, the Victorian WorkCover Authority ("the
Authority"), by its authorised agent, accepted that the respondent had a
psychological injury arising out of her employment with the appellant.
9. On about 22 March 2006, and pursuant to s 104B(9) of the Accident Compensation
Act, the Authority referred the following medical questions to a Medical Panel
for its opinion under s 67 of the Act -
I Section 91(6) was subsequently substituted by s 9(2) of the AcddCll1 COlnpeJIsalioll OIld Other Legis/alioll (Anmu/nJelI/) Act
2006 which commenced on 26 July 2006, so that there is now substituted for Chapter 14 of the AMA Guides the
guidelines entitled "The Guide to the Evaluation of Psychiatric Impainnent for Clinicians". The transitional provision
is in s 290 of the Accidnll Compel/sa/ioll Act.