Divertie v Startrack Express Pty Limited (formerly Neilsen Brame Pty Limited)

In the case of Divertie v Startrack Express Pty Limited, the applicant, Ms Divertie, sought leave to refer a question of law to the Full Bench of the Commission concerning the interpretation and application of section 351 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The dispute arose from an injury Ms Divertie sustained during her employment with Startrack Express, which led to her filing a claim for workers' compensation. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the case involved a 'novel or complex' matter, which would warrant a referral under section 351 of the Act. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the provisions of section 41A of the Act applied to the referral process.

The Commission meticulously examined the statutory language and legislative intent behind sections 351 and 41A. It found that the case did not present a novel or complex legal issue that would necessitate referral under section 351. The Commission determined that the applicant's interpretation of the statutory provisions was not sufficiently distinct or problematic to warrant the involvement of the Full Bench. Furthermore, the court concluded that section 41A did not alter the fundamental criteria for a referral under section 351. As a result, the application for leave to refer was dismissed.

Consequently, the Commission refused the applicant's request for leave to refer a question of law to the Full Bench. The decision underscored the stringent criteria required for a case to be deemed 'novel or complex' under the relevant statutory provisions. No order was made as to costs. This ruling clarified the threshold for referral applications under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, providing guidance for future cases involving similar legal interpretations.