Mahal v State of New South Wales (No 5)

The applicant, Mahal, sought to appeal against a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission (the Commission) and to adduce fresh evidence. The applicant argued that the Commission had erred in dismissing his appeal on the basis that his evidence was hearsay and speculative. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant also sought an order to re-open the matter before the Commission and to state a case from the Commission to the Supreme Court. The central legal issues were whether the applicant could adduce fresh evidence on appeal and whether the Supreme Court could state a case from the Commission to the Supreme Court.

The Court found that the applicant was unable to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, as the Commission would only grant leave for such evidence if it was not available to the party and could not reasonably have been obtained before the proceedings concerned, or if failure to grant leave would cause substantial injustice in the case. The Court found that the applicant had not satisfied either of these criteria. The Court also found that the Supreme Court did not have the power to state a case from the Commission to the Supreme Court as the Workers Compensation Acts provided that a decision of the Commission was final and binding on the parties and was not subject to appeal or review.

The Court confirmed the Certificate of Determination dated 18 February 2019. The Court found that the application for fresh evidence was not successful and that the application to state a case from the Commission to the Supreme Court was also not successful.