Legal Research
Cases
Redpath v State of New South Wales (Healthshare NSW)

Redpath v State of New South Wales (Healthshare NSW)

Case [2025] NSWPICPD 29 2 April 2025

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Redpath v State of New South Wales (Healthshare NSW) [2025] NSWPICPD 29
APPELLANT:	Sharyn Redpath
RESPONDENT:	State of New South Wales (Healthshare NSW)
INSURER:	QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W872/24
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Michael Snell
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	2 April 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Certificate of Determination dated 14 May 2024 is revoked. 2. The matter is remitted to a different non-Presidential member for redetermination.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Failing to afford a party procedural fairness having regard to the principles in Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; 197 ALR 389 and associated authorities; proof of injury pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – application of Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch [1964] HCA 34; 110 CLR 626; competing medical cases and the duty to provide reasons: Eckersley v Binnie (1988) 18 Con LR 1; Archibald v Byron Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 292; Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187; 66 NSWLR 186
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Ms E Grotte, counsel
Turner Freeman Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr T Grimes, counsel
Hicksons Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Redpath v State of New South Wales (HealthShare NSW) [2024] NSWPIC 249
MEMBER:	The Honourable L Drake
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	14 May 2024

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Sharyn Redpath (the appellant/worker) has a Bachelor of Business in Property; her background includes working as a valuer, and consulting in project management roles. From October 2015 she worked on a contract basis with the Ministry of Health (the Department) as a senior property officer. From 29 August 2016 she became a permanent employee of the Department, in the same capacity. She worked a 35-hour week. Her duties mainly involved desk work using a computer and attending meetings.[1]
[1] Appellant’s statement 29/1/24, [5], [9]–[14], Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), pp 1–15.
As a child the appellant suffered from Perthes disease which affected her hips. She had fluctuating hip pain from childhood. She developed low back pain from early adulthood. After a period living and working in the United Kingdom, she returned to Sydney and came under the care of Dr Walker from 2008. She saw physiotherapists and specialists for chronic hip, back and neck pain. On 3 June 2011 she woke with neck pain which became severe when she raised her arms to wash her hair while showering. On 27 June 2011 the appellant underwent surgery, involving C5/6 anterior decompression and fusion, at the hands of Dr Hsu. She had ongoing pain in the neck, lower back and hips. She stated that by 2015 to 2018 she did not require ongoing treatment and was able to work without restriction.[2]
[2] Appellant’s statement, [17]–[29].
From July 2015 the appellant worked in a building at Miller Street, North Sydney, which she described as unergonomic. In December 2016 the appellant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Redpath v State of New South Wales (Healthshare NSW)

Details

AGLC: Redpath v State of New South Wales (Healthshare NSW) [2025] NSWPICPD 29
Case: [2025] NSWPICPD 29
Decision Date: 2 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between Redpath, the applicant, and the State of New South Wales (Healthshare NSW), the respondent. The matter involved a dispute in relation to workers' compensation, specifically concerning the fairness of the procedural steps taken by the respondent and the validity of the applicant's proof of injury. The matter was heard in the Industrial Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought a review of a decision made by the respondent, arguing that they were not afforded procedural fairness and that the evidence provided was insufficient to substantiate the claim of injury.

The court had to determine whether the procedural fairness principles outlined in Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and associated authorities were adhered to during the proceedings. The second issue was to ascertain whether the evidence presented by the applicant was sufficient to prove the injury under section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the principles established in Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch applied in this case and whether the respondent's duty to provide reasons for their decisions was met, as per Eckersley v Binnie, Archibald v Byron Shire Council, and Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic.

The court found that the respondent had indeed failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness, as they did not provide an opportunity to address the issues raised in the report. This conclusion was reached by considering the principles from Dranichnikov and the associated authorities. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence presented by the applicant was not sufficient to prove the injury under section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court found that the principles in Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch applied and that the respondent had not met their duty to provide reasons, in accordance with Eckersley v Binnie, Archibald v Byron Shire Council, and Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic.

The court ordered that the decision of the respondent be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the respondent for reconsideration, ensuring that the applicant is afforded procedural fairness and that a proper assessment of the evidence is undertaken. The court further directed that the respondent provide reasons for their decisions in accordance with the relevant authorities.

Orders