Foenander v Monash Health & Ors [2025] VSC 823 (Link to JADE).
Although ultimately the court held that jurisdictional error on the part of the Panel had not been shown, this is quite a helpful detailed analysis of arguments as to jurisdictional error, mandatory relevant considerations and an appropriate path of reasoning.
The court held at [101]:
I reject the submission made on behalf of Ms Foenander that the panel’s failure to set out why it did not find that Ms Foenander suffered from pain syndrome necessarily meant that it did not consider the question that it was asked to determine, or that it failed to take into account a mandatory relevant consideration. To the contrary I am satisfied that it did consider the matters that it was asked to consider and set out its findings and conclusions in its determination.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2474]