Ramsay v State of New South Wales (Southern NSW Local Health District)

Case [2024] NSWPICPD 47


DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

CITATION:

Ramsay v State of New South Wales (Southern NSW Local Health District) [2024] NSWPICPD 47

APPLICANT:

Geoffrey Ramsay

RESPONDENT:

State of New South Wales (Southern NSW Local Health District)

INSURER:

Employers Mutual Limited - TMF

FILE NUMBER:

W7567/23

PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:

President Judge Phillips

DATE OF DECISION ON REMITTER:

19 August 2024

ORDERS MADE ON REMITTER:

1.     The Direction dated 14 November 2023 is revoked.

2.     The matter is remitted to the Division Head, Workers Compensation Division, for allocation to a member.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – remittal from the District Court – Application to District Court under s 26 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 – applications to the Personal Injury Commission for workers compensation where the parties are residents of different States; and where respondent is the State of New South Wales for the purposes of s 75(iv) of the Constitution (Cth) and the applicant is resident of another State – whether Personal Injury Commission would be exercising federal jurisdiction when determining issues under sections 4, 9, 9A, 11A, 14, 25, 26, 32A, 33, 36, 37, 38, 59, 60 and 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998

DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:

14 November 2023

DECISION OF:

Principal Member J Bamber

DATE OF DISTRICT COURT DECISION:

7 August 2024

INTRODUCTION

  1. This matter comes before the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) pursuant to an order for remitter made by the District Court in 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 judgment).

BACKGROUND

  1. The applicant brought a claim against his employer, State of NSW (Southern NSW Local Health District), alleging he suffered a primary physical and secondary psychological injury during the course of his employment. The applicant claimed weekly benefits compensation and medical expenses pursuant to ss 33 and 60 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act).

  2. The respondent disputed the claim. The issues in dispute between the parties concerned ss 4, 9A, 11A, 33, 38 and 60 of the 1987 Act.

  3. Mr Ramsay was a resident of Queensland when he commenced proceedings in the Commission. His employer was the State of New South Wales.

  4. On 14 November 2023, following a preliminary conference, the Principal Member dismissed the application. The basis for the dismissal was that the application to the Commission may involve an exercise of federal jurisdiction because it is between the State and a resident of another State.

  5. Pursuant to s 26 of Div 3.2 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the 2020 Act) the applicant brought an application in the District Court of NSW.

  6. Section 26(5) of the 2020 Act provides that the District Court may remit a compensation matter application for determination by the usual decision-maker if the Court is satisfied that the usual decision-maker has jurisdiction to determine it, and do so instead of granting leave or after granting leave.

  7. The matter was heard on 4 April 2024, along with four other matters which the Commission had also declined to determine because they may involve the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

  1. The District Court found that in determining the issues raised by the parties under ss 4, 9A, 11A, 33, 38 and 60 of the 1987 Act, the Commission would not be exercising judicial power, but instead administrative power (judgement at [63]).

ORDERS ON REMITTER

  1. It is necessary that appropriate orders be made in compliance with the judgment and orders of the District Court, the effect of which is to set aside the Direction issued by Principal Member Bamber dated 14 November 2023.

DECISION

  1. The Direction dated 14 November 2023 is revoked.

  2. The matter is remitted to the Division Head, Workers Compensation Division, for allocation to a member.

Judge Phillips
PRESIDENT

19 August 2024

Details
AGLC
Ramsay v State of New South Wales (Southern NSW Local Health District) [2024] NSWPICPD 47
Case
[2024] NSWPICPD 47
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ramsay versus the State of New South Wales (Southern NSW Local Health District), the dispute originated from an application to the District Court under section 26 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, seeking workers' compensation. The applicant, Ramsay, resides in a state different from the respondent, the State of New South Wales, which is subject to section 75(iv) of the Australian Constitution and represents the Southern NSW Local Health District. The central issue before the court was whether the Personal Injury Commission would be exercising federal jurisdiction when determining issues under various sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Personal Injury Commission, particularly in relation to applications for workers' compensation where the applicant and respondent reside in different states. The court had to consider whether the Commission's role in such cases would be constitutionally valid under federal jurisdiction, given the interplay between state and federal laws governing workers' compensation. The court examined the relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to determine if the Commission's authority extended to cases involving interstate residents.

The court concluded that the Personal Injury Commission does not exercise federal jurisdiction when determining workers' compensation applications under the specified sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The reasoning was based on the nature of the Commission's role, which is primarily to facilitate the resolution of disputes within the state framework, even when the parties reside in different states. The court held that the Commission's actions do not rise to the level of federal jurisdiction, as they are confined to the implementation of state legislation. Consequently, the application to the District Court was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application to the District Court under section 26 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 was dismissed, with no orders for costs. The court clarified that the Personal Injury Commission's jurisdiction is limited to the resolution of workers' compensation disputes under state law, without invoking federal jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.