Stanley v Lachlan Shire Council

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Stanley v Lachlan Shire Council [2023] NSWDC 262

Hearing dates:

12 July 2023

Date of orders:

21 July 2023

Decision date:

21 July 2023

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Weber SC DCJ

Decision:

(1) Leave is granted to the plaintiff to commence proceedings in this Court pursuant to s 26 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW).

(2)   Costs of the motion be costs in the cause.

Catchwords:

WORKERS COMPENSATION — Compensation dispute determinations — Referral of dispute to Commission

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Judicial Power — Federal jurisdiction

Legislation Cited:

Commonwealth Constitution, s 75

Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), s 51

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 21, 112

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39(2)

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), s 220

Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW), ss 26, 27

Cases Cited:

Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Howe (1922) 31 CLR 290; [1922] HCA 50

Burns v Corbett (2018) 265 CLR 304; [2018] HCA 15

Crouch v Commissioner for Railways (Qld) (1985) 159 CLR 22; [1985] HCA 69

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v State Bank (NSW) (1992) 174 CLR 219; [1992] HCA 6

Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd v Clarence City Council [2022] HCA 5; 96 ALJR 234

Lee v Fletcher International Exports Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 71

Searle v McGregor [2022] NSWCA 213

Texts Cited:

None

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Jammie Michael Stanley (Plaintiff)
Lachlan Shire Council (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr T Grimes (Plaintiff)
Mr J Beran (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Gerard Malouf & Partners Law (Plaintiff)
Bartier Perry (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2023/00120527

Publication restriction:

None

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The plaintiff commenced these proceedings by way of summons. In the summons, the plaintiff seeks leave pursuant to s 26(3) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW) (the Act) to commence proceedings for compensation in this Court. The plaintiff further seeks an order pursuant to s 27 of the Act that the matter be remitted to the President of the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) to be determined by a Member.

2. The proceedings concern the claim in respect of workplace injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant Council. I was told from the Bar Table that these injuries were allegedly incurred while the plaintiff was working as part of a road maintenance crew.

3. The plaintiff now lives in Queensland and as such there is a possible issue of Federal jurisdiction which arises. A Member of the PIC determined that the issue of possible Federal jurisdiction was arguable, and took the view that she did not have power to determine that question.

4. The proceedings were thus discontinued in the PIC and these proceedings were commenced.

5. The reference to “Federal jurisdiction” is in reality a shorthand reference to section s 75 of the Commonwealth Constitution ("the Constitution”) which is in the following terms:

Original jurisdiction of High Court.

In all matters—

(i.) Arising under any treaty:

(ii.) Affecting consuls or other representatives of…