BOH v Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 283

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	BOH v Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 283
APPLICANT:	BOH
RESPONDENT:	Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	John Harris
DATE OF DECISION:	19 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA Act); Personal Injury Act 2020 (PIC Act); Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (MHCIFP Act); worker suffered injury when he fell from a ladder; claim for medical expenses and weekly compensation pursuant to section 38 of the WCA Act; orders previously made in favour of applicant for payment of section 60 of the WCA Act expenses for ongoing psychiatric condition; applicant unsuccessful in claim pursuant to section 38 of the WCA Act; application for reconsideration pursuant to section 57 of the PIC Act; applicant self-represented; allegations of lack of procedural fairness including not being advised that he could discontinue the original proceedings, imbalance in legal representation, and being found to be psychiatrically incompetent; criminal charges against applicant relating to threats against insurer previously dismissed under the MHCIFP Act suggesting that applicant was psychiatrically incompetent during hearing rejected on the facts; other allegations factually incorrect; allegations rejected but more appropriately should be considered by way of an appeal; Held – application for reconsideration rejected.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: Order 1. The application to reconsider the decision in BOH v Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 34 is rejected.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

[BOH] (the applicant) was employed by Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Ltd (the respondent) and sustained injury in the course of his employment on 24 December 2020 when he fell off a ladder.
This is an Application by BOH pursuant to s 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act, 2020 (PIC Act) to reconsider the orders and reasons delivered on 5 February 2025.[1] These reasons are to be read with the original decision.
[1] BOH v Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 34 (the Decision).
The applicant was de-identified in the original decision. These reasons are also de-identified.
The applicant alleges, for a number of reasons, that the original orders should be set aside and requests either a new hearing or that he discontinue these proceedings “without prejudice”.
Directions were made for the filing of submissions by the respondent and for the applicant to file any submissions in reply. The applicant did not file any submissions in reply.

REASONS

The applicant makes a series of allegations which raise issues of lack of procedural fairness, denial of natural justice and errors of fact and/or law. The submissions are repetitive in part but fall within the following areas.

Psychiatrically incompetent

The applicant alleged that he was declared “psychiatrically incompetent”. There was no submission or reference to the evidence as to when this occurred.
In the Decision the applicant was found to suffer from an ongoing psychological condition. The preponderance of the medical evidence described the condition as a somatic symptom disorder or similar psychological condition.
The reasons show that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading BOH v Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: BOH v Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 283
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 283
Decision Date: 19 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a claim by BOH, the worker, against Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Ltd, the employer, for medical expenses and weekly compensation following a workplace accident. The dispute arose from the worker's fall from a ladder and subsequent injury, leading to claims under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA Act). The worker sought medical expenses and weekly compensation, but the employer contested these claims. The court had to determine whether the worker was entitled to compensation and medical expenses, as well as consider the procedural fairness of the previous proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the worker had a valid claim for compensation and medical expenses under the WCA Act, and if the previous proceedings were conducted fairly. The worker argued that he was not properly advised of his rights, including the right to discontinue the original proceedings, and that there was an imbalance in legal representation. Additionally, the worker claimed that he was found to be psychiatrically incompetent, a claim that was dismissed under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (MHCIFP Act). The worker also argued that he should not have been subject to criminal charges relating to threats against the insurer.

The court found that the worker's claims for compensation and medical expenses were unsuccessful under the WCA Act. Regarding the application for reconsideration under the Personal Injury Act 2020 (PIC Act), the court rejected the allegations of procedural unfairness. The court noted that the worker was self-represented and that the claims of procedural unfairness were either factually incorrect or should be considered on appeal. The court concluded that the allegations of procedural unfairness were unfounded and dismissed the application for reconsideration. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Orders