The Personal Injury Commission Flexes its Administrative Muscle
Published on September 13, 2024 by Jacqueline Pearce and Scott Dougall
An issue had arisen as to whether the Personal Injury Commission (‘PIC’) had jurisdiction to determine matters in relation to the injury, liability, and various entitlement provisions under the Workers Compensation Act (‘WCA’) when a worker resided outside of NSW at the time of filing an application.
Several matters were ultimately dismissed to allow the District Court to determine and clarify the scope of the PIC’s power moving forward.
Introduction
A recent joint judgment handed down by Judge Waugh of the District Court of New South Wales (‘the Court’) has confirmed that the PIC operates with administrative power, rather than judicial, when resolving disputes between the State of New South Wales, and a resident of another State of Australia.
This distinction was crucial, highlighting the PIC’s function as an administrative body, distinct from the courts that are vested with federal jurisdiction and judicial authority pursuant to the Australian Constitution [1].
Dissecting the core issues
The Court was faced with two key questions relating to the interpretation of section 26 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (‘the Act’):
- What were the nature of the issues presented in the worker’s application to the PIC?
- Whether the PIC’s resolution of these issues amounted to the exercise of judicial power?
Judgement
Judge Waugh acknowledged that the task of determining what constituted judicial power was not linear,[2] and his Honour drew on a series of prior decisions to assist [3].
In Kanajenahalli, the workers injury was not in dispute, but only whether the employers actions were reasonable under section 11A(1) of the WCA. The Court concluded that this determination would be to exercise administrative power, rather than judicial.
Similarly, following an appeal, the Court found in that in resolving issues under section 4(b)(i) of the WCA,[4] judicial power would not be employed.
These cases did however not go far enough to resolve the federal jurisdiction question looming over further sections of the WCA.
In this latest decision, Judge Waugh concluded that sections 4, 9A and 11A all involve a ‘question of causation, which is a question of fact’.[5] His Honour also found that workers compensation benefits under section 33, 36-38, 60 and 66 were merely consequential calculations following the determination of causation, therefore not amounting to the exercise of judicial power.
As a result of this decision, all matters concurrently heard by Judge Waugh were to be remitted back to the PIC for determination.
Key takeaways
Although the ruling clarifies the PIC does not hold federal jurisdiction, it confirms that in determining interstate disputes in respect of a worker’s injury and their respective entitlements, the PIC is only flexing their administrative power.
This conclusion, based on the informality of the PIC’s procedures and the fact that it is not bound by the rules of evidence,[6] catalyses a reflection on the rationale behind the creation of the PIC, and its predecessors – to ensure access to a just, quick, and cost-effective resolution in a transparent and informal setting for all its users [7].
We trust that this decision will clarify any future uncertainty regarding the power the PIC wields, and ensure future workers continue to have access to justice, despite their postcode at the time a dispute arises. Although, we stress that close consideration of the power being exercised by the PIC is still required in unique circumstances.
Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. If you are seeking professional advice on any legal matters, you can contact Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers on 1800 059 278 or via our Contact Page and one of our lawyers will be able to assist you.
[1] Australian Constitution, s 75(iv).
[2] Ramsay v Southern NSW Local Health District; Manning v Sydney Trains; Honey v Robert Sheridan Family Trust; Duncan v Department of Education; Magnan v Upper Shire Council [2024] NSWDC 326, at [17].
[3] Searle; Kanajenahalli v State of New South Wales (Western New South Wales Local Health District) [2023] NSWCA 202.
[4] Chetty v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2024] NSWDC 12 (13 February 2024).
[5] [103]
[6] Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW), s 43; K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2009) 237 CLR 501 at [82].
[7] Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW), s 3 ‘Objects of the Act’,
