No real attempt is made by the general practitioner to say how long the may be “condition” expected to continue. That it will affect the applicant until least May 7 2018” is unhelpful. “at Does this mean it is likely to resolve soon after 7 May 2018 or that the general practitioner does not know when it might resolve? Important questions about the possibility of the process being advanced appear to have been dismissed out of hand by the general practitioner. I note the report states that it was prepared quickly because the author was about to go on leave. That may explain its lack of detail but I do not think the respondent is far wrong in describing it, as it does in its written submissions, as “perfunctory”. I consider that a reasonable reader of the report, in the of an employer wanting good information on the applicant’s fitness for work, would think obtaining a specialist’s opinion a very sound idea. I do not consider that a reasonable reader would conclude that the general practitioner’s short report provided the information an employer might reasonably desire in relation to an employee’s fitness for work. In the circumstances of this case the reasonable reader would quickly conclude both that clause 6 of the contract of employment is perfectly suited to obtaining an assessment of the applicant’s fitness for work and that this would be an appropriate occasion for its invocation. The idea that, in the circumstances of this case, the report of the general practitioner would be the end of the story is unreasonable. The applicant is the Chief Executive Officer of a local government entity. It is not credible to suggest that clause 6 does not allow that entity to get comprehensive information in relation to
No real attempt is made by the general practitioner to say how long the “condition” may be expected to continue. That it will affect the applicant until “at least May 7 2018” is unhelpful. Does this mean it is likely to resolve soon after 7 May 2018 or that the general practitioner does not know when it might resolve? Important questions about the possibility of the process being advanced appear to have been dismissed out of hand by the general practitioner. I note the report states that it was prepared quickly because the author was about to go on leave. That may explain its lack of detail but I do not think the respondent is far wrong in describing it, as it does in its written submissions, as “perfunctory”. I consider that a reasonable reader of the report, in the of an employer wanting good information on the applicant’s fitness for work, would think obtaining a specialist’s opinion a very sound idea. I do not consider that a reasonable reader would conclude that the general practitioner’s short report provided the information an employer might reasonably desire in relation to an employee’s fitness for work. In the circumstances of this case the reasonable reader would quickly conclude both that clause 6 of the contract of employment is perfectly suited to obtaining an assessment of the applicant’s fitness for work and that this would be an appropriate occasion for its invocation. The idea that, in the circumstances of this case, the report of the general practitioner would be the end of the story is unreasonable. The applicant is the Chief Executive Officer of a local government entity. It is not credible to suggest that clause 6 does not allow that entity to get comprehensive information in relation to
APPL-55-2018-201800737.DOCX