Pica v Local Government Association of South Australia Incorporated

The applicant, Pica, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute concerned an application made under section 97(4e)(d) of the relevant legislation, which sought to allow a worker to give evidence before the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. The Full Court had, by majority, upheld the Tribunal's decision not to permit this evidence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Full Court had erred in its interpretation and application of section 97(4e)(d). Specifically, the applicant argued that this provision should be interpreted more broadly to allow for the admission of oral evidence in circumstances where it was necessary to establish the worker's credit, particularly when the initial review officer was legally unqualified. The applicant contended that this interpretation was consistent with the purpose of the section as a "safety valve" and that previous interpretations by other judges of the Supreme Court had been narrower.

The applicant's argument relied heavily on the reasoning of Acting Justice Zelling, who had favoured a wider interpretation of the subsection. The applicant submitted that this wider interpretation was necessary to address the peculiar facts of the case, where the applicant was allegedly in a "Catch 22" situation, unable to obtain crucial psychiatric evidence without first establishing his credit, which in turn required him to give oral evidence. The applicant highlighted that a number of Supreme Court judges had considered the subsection, but argued that only Acting Justice Zelling had adopted the broader construction that they contended was correct.