Rex vs Matoley And Ors. on 28 July, 1948
contemplated at all that the judgment of the medical referee
should, in the smallest degree, be lettered or influenced by
a certificate given by a wholly unauthorized person and I do
not think Mrs. Carmichael would be in the same position
before the medical referee as that in which she would have
been if there had been a refusal on the part of the proper
officer to give her any certificate at all." A surgeon's
certificate which gave or deprived a person of right to
compensation was thus considered a judicial act and if the
person had no jurisdiction to give such a certificate a writ
of certiorari was considered the proper remedy. It should
be noticed that in this case a procedure of inquiry was
provided under the Act. The case was under entirely differ-
ent provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which,
inter alia, gave a right of appeal against the surgeon's
decision. It may be further noticed that the subsequent
right to obtain compensation started with the certificate in
question and was not an independent act of the deciding
authority having no connection or concern and not influenced
by this decision. A similar decision in respect of the
mental capacity of a boy in a school is in Rex v. Boycott
and Others (1). In that case also the opinion of the examin-
ing doctor, which had to be followed by subsequent examina-
tion and inquiry, was considered subject to a writ of certi-
orari because that decision directly related to the boy and
was the starting point for proceeding under the Detention
Act and the Mental Deficiency Act.