SM v State of New South Wales

The case of SM v State of New South Wales involves a claim for damages arising from a work-related injury under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). The plaintiff, SM, alleges that she suffered a work injury that resulted in serious psychiatric conditions. The dispute concerns whether SM's application under section 151D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) for an extension of time to proceed with her claim should be heard by the trial judge or separately by another judge.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application under section 151D should be determined prior to the trial of the substantive proceedings by a different judge, or whether it should be heard by the trial judge at the final hearing. The court had to weigh the potential impact on SM's psychiatric conditions if she were required to give oral evidence on two separate occasions, against the need for a timely determination of the extension application.

The court concluded that, given the severity of SM's psychiatric conditions, it was inappropriate to have a separate determination of the section 151D application prior to the trial. The potential need for SM to give oral evidence on two occasions and the risk of aggravating her conditions were significant factors in this decision. Therefore, the application would be heard by the trial judge at the final hearing of the proceedings. The court also made several procedural orders, including the listing of the matter for hearing and directions before the List Judge, and reserved the costs of a previous application to the trial judge.

In summary, the court determined that the section 151D application should be heard by the trial judge at the final hearing of the proceedings, due to the plaintiff's severe psychiatric conditions. The court's decision aimed to minimise the risk of exacerbating SM's conditions by reducing the number of occasions she would need to give oral evidence.