Cja v Secretary (Department of Education)
[2025] NSWPICPD 68
•25 September 2025
| PRESIDENTIAL DECISION (Workers Compensation Division) | |
CITATION: | CJA v Secretary (Department of Education) [2025] NSWPICPD 68 |
APPLICANT: | CJA |
FIRST RESPONDENT: | Secretary (Department of Education) |
SECOND RESPONDENT: | Recruitment Solutions (A Division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Limited |
FIRST RESPONDENT’S INSURER: | Allianz TMF |
SECOND RESPONDENT’S INSURER: | RGF Staffing ANZ Pty Ltd |
FILE NUMBER: | W3680/25 |
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | President Judge Phillips |
DATE OF PRESIDENT’S DECISION: | 25 September 2025 |
ORDERS: | 1. Pursuant to r 6 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, I dispense with the requirement in r 132(3)(c) that this application be made within seven days of the decision being issued. I extend time for the applicant to make application under r 132 to 19 September 2025. 2. Pursuant to r 132, I direct that the names of the applicant and the three lay witnesses referred to by the Member in the 2 September 2025 decision be de-identified. I direct that each be identified by pseudonyms. |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION – Application for redaction or de-identification under rule 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 |
HEARING: | On the papers |
REPRESENTATION: | Applicant: |
| Ms R Sutton, solicitor | |
| Mills Oakley | |
| First Respondent: | |
| Mr D Khoshaba, solicitor | |
| Bartier Perry Lawyers | |
| Second Respondent: | |
| Mr E Brawn, solicitor | |
| Holman Webb Lawyers | |
BACKGROUND
The applicant worker brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) alleging that he suffered a psychological injury while in the course of his employment with the Department of Education (first respondent), which was aggravated or exacerbated when the applicant was later employed by Recruitment Solutions (A Division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Ltd (second respondent).
The matter was heard before Commission Member Mr J Turner. The Member issued a Certificate of Determination (COD) and attached reasons dated 2 September 2025[1] which found in favour of the applicant, with orders being made against both respondents. The COD and reasons were published seven (7) days later, in accordance with the Commission’s stated, longstanding practice of publishing decisions as required by s 58 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the 2020 Act).
[1] [2025] NSWPIC 452.
By letter dated 19 September 2025, the applicant makes an application pursuant to r 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (Rules) for the redaction of his name from both the COD and the reasons. This application is based upon a medical opinion from his treating psychologist dated 15 September 2025.
Both respondents have been apprised of this application and neither oppose the orders sought.
THE APPLICATION
The applicant’s application is made under r 132. In particular, the applicant points to the psychologist's opinion of the potential significant threat to the applicant’s health and safety in establishing the ground to make the order under r 132(4)(c) of the Rules.
LEGISLATION
Section 58(1) of the 2020 Act provides:
“58 Publication of decisions
(1) The Commission must cause details of the following to be published in accordance with the Commission rules—
(a) decisions of the Commission,
(b) decisions of merit reviewers under Division 7.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017,
(c) decisions of review panels for merit reviewers under Division 7.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017,
(d) decisions of Appeal Panels for medical assessments under Part 7 of Chapter 7 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998,
(e) decisions of review panels for medical assessments under Part 3.4 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 or Division 7.5 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017,
(f) any other decisions prescribed by the Commission rules.”
Rule 132 of the Rules provides:
“132 De-identification or redaction of publishable decisions
(1) The Commission or the President may, of their own motion or on the application of a relevant person, direct either or both of the following—
(a) that all or part of a publishable decision be de-identified before it is published,
(b) that part of a publishable decision be redacted before it is published.
(2) An application for a direction may be made during, or after the completion of, the proceedings in which the publishable decision is issued.
(3) An application for a direction is to be made to—
(a) for proceedings being heard by the Commission that have not been completed—the Commission, or
(b) for other proceedings that have not been completed—the President, or
(c) for proceedings that have been completed—the President within 7 days after the publishable decision is issued.
(4) In determining an application for a direction, the Commission or the President is to have regard to the following matters—
(a) the objects of the PIC Act and enabling legislation and, in particular, the object that the Commission be open and transparent about its processes,
(b) the prevention of prejudice to the proper administration of justice,
(c) the safety, health and wellbeing of a person affected or named by the publishable decision,
(d) the views of any other party to the proceedings,
(e) whether it is necessary in the public interest for the direction to be given and whether the public interest in giving the direction significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice.
(5) If the Commission grants an application for a direction under subrule (3)(a), the President may, despite the direction of the Commission, direct that the publishable decision be published without the de-identifications or redactions directed by the Commission or with different de-identifications or redactions.
(6) In this rule—
publishable decision means a decision details of which are required to be published by section 58 of the PIC Act.
relevant person, in relation to an application for a direction, means—
(a) a party to the proceedings in which the publishable decision is made, or
(b) a person named in the publishable decision, or
(c) another person the Commission or the President considers to have a sufficient interest to make the application.”
Rule 6 of the Rules provides:
“6 Dispensing with requirements of Rules
(1) The Commission may, by order, dispense with a requirement of these Rules in relation to particular Commission proceedings if satisfied it is appropriate to do so.
(2) The President may, by order, dispense with a requirement of these Rules in relation to particular applicable proceedings, or particular kinds of applicable proceedings, if satisfied it is appropriate to do so.
(3) The power given to the President by subrule (2) extends to a requirement of Part 5 of the Act applied to applicable proceedings, other than Commission proceedings, by a provision of these Rules.
(4) A requirement may be dispensed with under this rule before or after the occasion for compliance with the requirement arises.”
CONSIDERATION
The Member’s decision is clearly a publishable decision requiring publication by virtue of s 58 of the 2020 Act.
Rule 132 gives some relief from this requirement by enabling the President, or Commission, to redact or de-identify all, or part of a publishable decision.
The power under r 132, on its face, however, applies to allow a direction to be made before the decision is published.[2]
[2] See Rule 132 (1) of the Rules.
Rule 132(2) contemplates an application for redaction or de-identification being made during, or after the completion of proceedings. Rule 132(3) provides for who the application is to be made to and determined by, depending on the stage the proceedings are up to. In this case, the application has been made after proceedings have been completed. Rule 132(3)(c) contemplates that in this situation, an application is to be made to the President within seven (7) days of the publishable decision being issued to the parties.
No such application was made to me within that seven (7) day period and as such, the decision was published in accordance with the Commission’s statutory mandate.
Rule 132 of the Rules therefore does not respond to the circumstance in this application.
However, pursuant to r 6 of the Rules, I have broad powers to dispense with the application of the Rules if I am satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. Even though there is no application before me seeking r 6 relief, the use of that power is not dependent upon the making of an application, rather it depends upon whether I am satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.
I have read the treating psychologist’s report. For the purposes of this decision, it is not necessary that I set out in terms the reasons and opinions expressed therein. However, I unreservedly accept the opinion that the identification of the applicant in the published decision “represents a significant threat to both his health and safety” for the reasons expressed by the psychologist.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me, pursuant to r 6 of the Rules, to dispense with the requirement that the application for a direction be made to me within seven (7) days of the decision being issued as required by r 132(3)(c), and before the decision is published (r 132(1)). I extend the time for the application to be made to 19 September 2025.
Whilst the application only seeks the redaction of the applicant’s name, I have read the decision and in my view this application does not go far enough. The decision names other persons. If their names were published, that could potentially have a tendency to identify the applicant by person(s) who are familiar with the second respondent’s operations. This could adversely affect the protective nature of the orders I will make. I will therefore widen the orders I make to not only apply to the applicant, but also to the three (3) lay witnesses in the employ of the second respondent who are named in the decision. There is no need to de-identify any of the expert medical witnesses.
This is yet another example of an application being made under r 132 after a decision has been published. Practitioners, especially in cases involving applicants suffering from mental illnesses, should be alive to making an application under r 132 before the Member at the hearing. The decision was already published before this application was made, which means that the applicant does not receive the full benefit of the orders of a protective nature that I will make.
DECISION
Pursuant to r 6 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, I dispense with the requirement in r 132(3)(c) that this application be made within seven (7) days of the decision being issued. I extend time for the applicant to make application under r 132 to 19 September 2025.
Pursuant to r 132, I direct that the names of the applicant and the three (3) lay witnesses referred to by the Member in the 2 September 2025 decision be de-identified. I direct that each be identified by pseudonyms.
Judge Phillips
President
25 September 2025
0
1
0