Magnan v Upper Hunter Shire Council

DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
CITATION:	Magnan v Upper Hunter Shire Council [2024] NSWPICPD 50
APPLICANT:	Angela Magnan
RESPONDENT:	Upper Hunter Shire Council
INSURER:	StateCover Mutual Limited
FILE NUMBER:	W5374/21
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Phillips
DATE OF DECISION ON REMITTER:	19 August 2024
ORDERS MADE ON REMITTER:	1. Proceedings in matter number W5374/21 be restored in accordance with the Certificate of Determination dated 24 February 2022. 2. The matter is listed for a preliminary conference before a member on 6 September 2024.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – remittal from the District Court – Application to District Court under s 26 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 – applications to the Personal Injury Commission for workers compensation where the parties are residents of different States; and where respondent is the State of New South Wales for the purposes of s 75(iv) of the Constitution (Cth) and the applicant is resident of another State – whether Personal Injury Commission would be exercising federal jurisdiction when determining issues under sections 4, 9, 9A, 11A, 14, 25, 26, 32A, 33, 36, 37, 38, 59, 60 and 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	24 February 2022
DECISION OF:	Senior Member E Beilby
DATE OF DISTRICT COURT DECISION:	7 August 2024

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) pursuant to an order for remitter made by the District Court in Ramsay v Southern NSW Local Health District; Manning v Sydney Trains; Honey v Robert Sheridan Family Trust; Duncan v Department of Education; Magnan v Upper Shire Council [2024] NSWDC 326 (the judgment).

BACKGROUND

The applicant brought a claim against her employer, Upper Hunter Shire Council, alleging she contracted Q fever during the course of her employment. The applicant claimed weekly benefits compensation, medical expenses and lump sum compensation pursuant to ss 33, 60 and 66 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act).
The respondent disputed the claim. The issues in dispute between the parties concerned ss 4(b)(i), 33, 36–38, 60 and 66 of the 1987 Act.
Ms Magnan was a resident of Queensland when she commenced proceedings in the Commission. The respondent is a Council and an emanation of the State of New South Wales.
On 24 February 2022, following a hearing, the Senior Member dismissed the application. The basis for the dismissal was that it was arguable that the determination of the matter by the Commission may involve an exercise of federal jurisdiction because it is between the State and a resident of another State. The Member ordered that the application may be restored if the District Court of New South Wales remitted the application pursuant to section 26(v)(a) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the 2020 Act).
Pursuant to s 26 of Div 3.2 of the 2020 Act the applicant brought an application in the District Court of NSW.
Section 26(5) of the 2020 Act provides that the District Court may remit a compensation matter application for determination by the usual decision-maker if the Court is satisfied that the usual decision-maker has jurisdiction to determine it, and do so instead of granting leave or after granting leave.
The matter was heard on 4 April 2024, along with four other matters which the Commission had also declined to determine because they may involve the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF NSW

The District Court found that in determining the issues raised by the parties under ss 4(b)(i), 33, 36–38, 60 and 66, the Commission would not be exercising judicial power, but instead administrative power (judgement at [195]–[196]).

ORDERS ON REMITTER

It is necessary that appropriate orders be made in compliance with the judgment and orders of the District Court, the effect of which is to restore the proceedings in accordance with the Certificate of Determination issued by Senior Member Beilby dated 24 February 2022.

DECISION

Proceedings in matter number W5374/21 be restored in accordance with the Certificate of Determination dated 24 February 2022.
The matter is listed for a preliminary conference before a member on 6 September 2024.

Judge Phillips
PRESIDENT

19 August 2024

In the case of Magnan v Upper Hunter Shire Council, the applicant sought to have his application for workers compensation remitted to the Personal Injury Commission. The applicant, Magnan, was employed by Upper Hunter Shire Council and was injured in the course of his employment. The dispute arose from the application of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, specifically whether the Commission would exercise federal jurisdiction in determining workers compensation claims under various sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the court had to consider the jurisdictional implications of the Personal Injury Commission in handling workers compensation claims, particularly in cases where the applicant and respondent resided in different states, and where the respondent was the State of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Personal Injury Commission would be exercising federal jurisdiction when it determined issues under specified sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. This question necessitated an analysis of the interplay between state and federal jurisdictions in the context of workers compensation claims. The court had to determine if the Personal Injury Commission, when exercising its functions, would be acting under federal law, and if so, whether this would confer the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case. The court also considered the implications of the Constitution, particularly section 75(iv), which grants the High Court original jurisdiction in matters involving the State of New South Wales.

The court examined the nature of the Personal Injury Commission's functions and its role in the workers compensation system. It found that the Personal Injury Commission, when determining issues under the specified sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, would indeed be exercising federal jurisdiction. This was because the Commission's role in handling these claims involved the application of federal legislation, thereby falling within the scope of federal jurisdiction. The court concluded that the Personal Injury Commission's determination of these claims would be subject to the principles of federal law, thus granting the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case.

The final orders of the court were to remit the application to the Personal Injury Commission for further proceedings, recognising that the Commission had the requisite federal jurisdiction to hear and determine the workers compensation claim. The court's decision clarified the jurisdictional framework governing the Personal Injury Commission's role in workers compensation claims, providing guidance for future cases involving similar jurisdictional questions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established