Siddik v Workcover Authority of NSW

Siddik appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of Associate Justice Malpass concerning a workers compensation claim. The dispute centred on the level of permanent impairment of the appellant, Mr. Siddik, following a workplace injury. An approved medical specialist had issued a medical assessment certificate, and the Registrar had permitted a challenge to this certificate to proceed to an Appeal Panel on specified grounds. However, the Appeal Panel ultimately determined the appeal on grounds that had not been raised by either party.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the nature and scope of an appeal by way of review under section 328 of the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998*. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Appeal Panel was obliged to inform the parties if it proposed to determine the appeal on grounds not raised by them, in the context of administrative law and the principles of procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that an appeal by way of review, as contemplated by the Act, does not grant the Appeal Panel unfettered power to determine the appeal on any grounds it chooses, irrespective of the parties' submissions. The court held that the Appeal Panel had erred by departing from the grounds of appeal that had been permitted to proceed and by determining the appeal on new grounds without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard on those grounds. This failure constituted a breach of procedural fairness. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of Associate Justice Malpass, and remitted the matter to the Appeal Panel to be dealt with according to law.