Federal Jurisdiction in the Personal Injury Commission – Case Law Update

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

The proceedings before the District Court related to five separate Applications brought under Section 26 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020.

In each case, the Plaintiff brought a workers compensation claim in the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) which the Commission declined to determine because it may involve an exercise of federal jurisdiction. The preliminary issue in each matter therefore related to whether the Applications potentially fell within Section 75 of the Constitution as  “matters – … (iv) … between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State”.

Issue

Whether the PIC determining each application would involve an exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Relevant Case Law

Searle v McGregor [2022] NSWCA 213 (Searle): At [19] per Kirk JA, “what the PIC is precluded from doing is taking steps which involve the exercise of judicial power in matters which would fall within federal jurisdiction. It is not precluded from exercising powers which are not judicial in relation to issues arising in the course of dealing with such disputes, even if any ultimate resolution (say) a claim for damages would involve the exercise of judicial power needing to be determined by a court”. Searle established that there were two critical questions which must be addressed on each Application under Section 26:-

1. What are the particular issues that have arisen in the Plaintiff’s application to the PIC?

2. Would determining one or more of those particular issues involve exercising judicial power?

In Kanajenahalli v State of New South Wales (Western New South Wales Local Health District) [2023] NSWCA 202 (Kanajenahalli): The Court of Appeal held that a decision by the PIC under Section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WC Act) would involve an exercise of administrative power, not judicial power, and therefore would not be an exercise of federal jurisdiction.

In Chetty v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2024] NSWDC 12: The Court found that a decision under Section 4(b)(i) of the WC Act was an exercise of administrative power, not judicial power.

Held

Following the reasoning in Searle, Kanajenahalli and Chetty, the Court found that decisions by the PIC under Sections 4, 9A, 11A, 14(3), 32A, 33, 36, 37, 38, 59 and 60 of the WC Act, and Section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (whether the Plaintiff was a “worker”) involved exercises of administrative, not judicial power. It was agreed that it was appropriate to remit each application to the PIC for determination.

Implications

The District Court has indicated that the PIC will be exercising administrative, not judicial power, in deciding matters involving questions in relation to Sections 4, 9A, 11A, 14(3), 32A, 33, 36, 37, 38, 59 and 60 of the WC Act, and Section 4 of the WIM Act.

Should you have any queries concerning a particular workers compensation matter, please contact our team on either (02) 4929 9333 or (02) 8297 5900.