Bond v Blacktown Area Community Centres Incorporated - [2025] NSWPIC 453

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Bond v Blacktown Area Community Centres Incorporated [2025] NSWPIC 453
APPLICANT:	Doreen Bond
RESPONDENT:	Blacktown Area Community Centres Inc.
MEMBER:	Catherine McDonald
DATE OF DECISION:	3 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); permanent impairment compensation assessed and medical appeal undertaken; proceedings discontinued by consent before compensation paid; application for reconsideration of certificate of determination and medical assessment certificate to allow for assessment of additional claims; principles relevant to reconsideration; Samuel v Sebel Furniture, and Inner West Council v McQuade; availability of medical appeal; Sleiman v Gadalla Pty Ltd, and Lovelee v Sydney International Container Terminals; need for claim and medical dispute; Skates v Hills Industries; one assessment; section 322A of the 1998 Act, Singh v B & E Poultry Holding Pty Ltd, and Secretary, Department of Education v Connolly; Held – reconsideration not possible in respect of claims not previously made; reconsideration in respect of remaining claim declined in exercise of discretion.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The application to reconsider the Certificate of Determination dated 17 July 2023 is granted. 2. I set aside the Certificate of Determination dated 17 July 2023. 3. The application to reconsider the Medical Assessment Certificate is declined. 4. Pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 the respondent is to pay the applicant $179,025 in respect of 50% whole person impairment. 5. I grant liberty to apply in the event that the calculation in order 4 is incorrect. A statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Doreen Bond was employed by Blacktown Area Community Centres Inc (Blacktown) when she suffered an injury on 16 May 2016. Ms Bond tripped, striking her head on a brick pillar. She suffered multiple injuries and, in the years since, has undergone extensive surgery.
Ms Bond claimed permanent impairment compensation in 2022. She commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). Dr Anderson, a Medical Assessor was asked to assess her cervical spine, right upper extremity, lumbar spine, right lower extremity, left lower extremity and scarring. On 29 September 2022 the Medical Assessor issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) in which he assessed 50% whole person impairment (WPI).
Ms Bond lodged an appeal against the medical assessment. While the Appeal Panel allowed the appeal and revoked the MAC, the overall assessment of 50% WPI did not change. The Appeal Panel issued its decision, including a new MAC, on 29 May 2023.[1]
[1] Bond v Blacktown Area Community Centres Inc [2023] NSWPICMP 227.
Before orders were made giving effect to the determination of the Appeal Panel, a Member of the Commission issued a Certificate of Determination (COD) by consent on 17 July 2023 stating that the proceedings were discontinued and noting that no COD had been issued with respect to WPI.
On 12 March 2024, in matter W720/24,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bond v Blacktown Area Community Centres Incorporated and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPIC 453
Decision Date: 3 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bond v Blacktown Area Community Centres Incorporated, the applicant sought reconsideration of a certificate of determination (COD) and a medical assessment certificate (MAC) issued by the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales. The dispute arose from the assessment of permanent impairment compensation, which had been determined and a medical appeal undertaken. The proceedings were discontinued by consent before compensation was paid. The applicant sought reconsideration to assess additional claims that had not been previously made. The court had to decide whether the claims could be reconsidered, and if so, whether the MAC should also be reconsidered. The court's reasoning involved considering the principles relevant to reconsideration, drawing from cases such as Samuel v Sebel Furniture and Inner West Council v McQuade. The court also considered the availability of a medical appeal and whether a claim and medical dispute were necessary, referencing Skates v Hills Industries. The court found that reconsideration was not possible in respect of claims not previously made, and in exercising its discretion, declined reconsideration in respect of the remaining claim.

The legal issues before the court were centered around the principles governing reconsideration of certificates of determination and medical assessment certificates under the Workers Compensation Act. The court had to determine whether the applicant's grounds for reconsideration, namely the deterioration of her condition and the availability of additional relevant information, warranted a reconsideration of the MAC. Additionally, the court had to consider the statutory requirement for a single assessment of whole person impairment (WPI), as highlighted in Singh v B & E Poultry Holding Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education v Connolly. The court also had to balance the need to ensure just, quick, and cost-effective resolution of real issues in the proceedings, as outlined in section 42 of the 2020 Act, against the principle that litigation should not proceed interminably.

In its decision, the court found that reconsideration was not possible for claims not previously made. However, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the COD to ensure that the applicant could recover compensation for injuries that had been accepted and assessed. The court concluded that the MAC should not be reconsidered, as this would not align with the statutory requirement for a single assessment of WPI. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the guiding principle of facilitating the just, quick, and cost-effective resolution of real issues in proceedings. The court's decision was guided by the principles set out in Hilliger v Hilliger, which highlight the power of the court to entertain an application for variation or rescission so long as the original order is current.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the certificate of determination in respect of the applicant's right knee and to decline reconsideration of the medical assessment certificate. The court's decision ensures that the applicant can recover compensation for injuries that have been assessed, while also adhering to the statutory requirement for a single assessment of whole person impairment. The court's exercise of discretion in setting aside the COD reflects the need for a just resolution of the real issues in the proceedings, while declining reconsideration of the MAC upholds the principle of a single assessment of WPI.

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

The passage from the decision of Street CJ in Hilliger v Hilliger[18] (Hilliger) to which Roche DP referred in Samuel reads:“I think there is power in the court to entertain an application for variation or rescission so long as the original order is current, and to make such order in the way of variation or rescission as to it may seem proper. It is important naturally to keep well in mind the distinction between the existence of a power and the occasion of its exercise, and the courts should not lose sight of the general rule that the public interest requires that litigation should not proceed interminably. A party who seeks or opposes an order must produce all the available evidence at the original hearing, and courts must be on their guard to refuse to allow the same matter to be litigated again and again. But at the same time it is clear that the Legislature intended to leave with the prescribed courts the power of reviewing any decision in order to see that justice is done between the parties.”[18] (1952) 52 SR (NSW) 105, 108. The emphasis in the latter quote was added by Roche DP and he formulated the last of the factors in his list by reference to that passage and to the former s 354(3) of the 1998 Act, now s 43(3) of the 2020 Act, which provides:“The Commission is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms.” Because there can only be a single assessment of WPI,[19] the COD must be set aside before any reconsideration of the MAC.[19] Hochbaum v RSM Building Services Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 113 at [54]-[57]. Taking into account the broad discretion to reconsider a determination of the Commission, fairness dictates that the COD should be set aside. Even though I have determined, for the reasons set out below, that the MAC should not be reconsidered, it would be unjust and contrary to the guiding principle in s 42 of the 2020 Act not to permit Ms Bond to recover the compensation payable in respect of the injuries which have been accepted and assessed by the Medical Assessor and the Appeal Panel. Section 42 of the 2020 Act provides that the guiding principle of that Act is to facilitate the just, quick and cost effective resolution of the real issues in the proceedings. Blacktown conceded that an order setting aside the COD may be appropriate. While any reconsideration would be undertaken by a Medical Assessor, the question of whether or not that should occur is one for the Commission. The grounds relied on by Ms Bond in support of the application for reconsideration are consistent with the grounds of appeal in s 327(3)(a) and (b) of the 1998 Act – deterioration of her condition and the availability of additional relevant information. The same arguments are relied on with respect to her right knee and with respect to her right hip and sleep apnoea. The circumstances with respect to Ms Bond’s right knee are different to those with respect to her right hip and sleep apnoea.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.