Johnson v Arandale

Case •

[2022] NSWPIC 309

•

20 June 2022

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 

CITATION:

Johnson v Arandale [2022] NSWPIC 309
APPLICANT: Steven Johnson
RESPONDENT: Daniel Arandale
PRINCIPAL MEMBER: John Harris
DATE OF DECISION: 20 June 2022
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - The applicant sustained a compensable left wrist injury and sought weekly compensation pursuant to section 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; the pleadings stated and the parties confirmed that the worker and the employer were residents of different States at the time of filing; Ritson v State of New South Wales; Held– matter dismissed due to absence of jurisdiction to determine the dispute. 
DETERMINATIONS MADE:

1. This is a matter between residents of different States within the meaning of s 75(iv) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

2. The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 77(b)(iv) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021.

3.     The application can be restored if the District Court remits the application pursuant to
s 26(5)(a) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Steven Johnson suffered a compensable left wrist injury in the employ of
    Mr Daniel Arandale (the employer) on 26 May 2018. Mr Johnson has made a claim on the employer for the payment of weekly compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

  2. The present application seeks the payment of weekly compensation from 15 January 2021 to date and continuing pursuant to the provisions of s 38 of the 1987 Act.

  3. The matter was reallocated to me at short notice on the day of the hearing. Mr Daniel Steiner of counsel appeared for Mr Johnson and Mr Alan Parker of counsel appeared for the respondent.

  4. Mr Parker advised that this is a matter between a resident of Queensland and a resident of the State of New South Wales, which is required, pursuant to s 75(iv) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (the Constitution), to be determined by a court of a State.

  5. Whilst these matters were not raised in the Reply or at the telephone conference, Mr Parker advised that he previously informed Mr Steiner of this issue. Mr Steiner agreed with this.

  6. Mr Johnson confirmed that he resides in far North Queensland although he stated that he was in New South Wales on the hearing day for personal reasons. I was otherwise advised that the employer resides in Glen Innes, New South Wales. The Application to Resolve a Dispute confirms that the parties are residents of different States.

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

  1. Section 71 of the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in the High Court, such other federal courts created by Parliament and in such other courts invested with federal jurisdiction.

  2. Section 75 of the Constitution is headed “Original Jurisdiction of the High Court” and relevantly provides:

    “In all matters:

    ….

    (iv)  between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and

    a resident of another State;

    ….

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

  1. Section 77 of the Constitution provides:

    “With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two sections the Parliament may make laws:

    (i)defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the High Court;

    (ii)defining the extent to which the jurisdiction of any federal court shall be exclusive of that which belongs to or is invested in the courts of the States;

    (iii)investing any court of a State with federal jurisdiction.”

  2. Section 39(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (the Judiciary Act) provides that courts of a State are invested with federal jurisdiction in some matters in which the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction. The matters in which the High Court retains exclusive jurisdiction is not relevant to the facts of this case. By reason of s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act, courts of a State may determine matters between residents of different States.

REASONS

  1. For the reasons expressed in Ritson v State of New South Wales[1], at the date of filing of the application the parties were residents of different States[2] arguably contesting a matter involving the exercise of judicial power. Accordingly, it is necessary that the matter be heard by a Court of a State.

    [1] [2022] NSWDC 133.

    [2] See Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Howe [1922] HCA 50 affirmed in Crouch v The Commissioner for Railways (Queensland) [1985] HCA 69 at [4].

  2. My opinion and orders are set out in the Certificate of Determination.


Cases Citing This Decision

0