Ritson v State of New South Wales

Ritson v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWCA 226
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Meagher JA, Simpson, & Griffiths AJJA
Workers compensation – Ritson was a Senior Constable in the NSW Police Force who was assaulted by an offender and sustained an injury to his right thumb – he applied to the Personal Injury Commission for payment of medical expenses of $825 for a “Co2 Fractional Ablative Laser Treatment for surgical scar to right thumb” pursuant to s60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), naming the NSW Police Force as respondent – the Commission found that it had no jurisdiction because Ritson was then a resident of Queensland, and his claim against an entity of the State of NSW involved the exercise of federal jurisdiction, with which the Commission was not invested – Ritson then sought leave to apply to the District Court under s26(3) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW) – the primary judge dismissed this application, on the basis that Ritson had already received a payment under a deed of settlement that constituted damages, and s151A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) precluded further discovery – Ritson then filed an application for leave to appeal, and then an appeal purportedly as of right, in the Court of Appeal – the State sought orders that the (purported) appeal be dismissed as incompetent, on the basis that it did not satisfy the financial threshold ($100,000) prescribed by s127(2)(c) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) – the Court dealt with the matter as a concurrent hearing of Ritson’s application for leave to appeal and his notice of appeal, and the State’s notice of motion – held: the orders from which Ritson sought to appeal were orders made in a proceeding that involved a claim for medical expenses of $825 – it did not matter that he had later made a further claim for weekly payments of compensation that, if successful, would result in an award of over $100,000, even if that claim would be “stifled” if the current appeal were unsuccessful – the appeal was incompetent and leave was required – generally speaking, it is only appropriate to grant leave in matters that involve issues of principle, questions of public importance, or in circumstances where it is reasonably clear that an injustice has incurred by reason of error in the judgment, going beyond what is merely arguable – the settlement deed had identified the payment to Ritson as “damages” – none of Ritson’s arguments that that payment was compensation under the Workers Compensation Act and not damages had any prospect of success on appeal – Ritson’s argument that the payment was not “in respect of” the injury in respect of which he sought the $825 payment was not easy to follow, and had no prospect of success – failure on the part of a decision-maker to address a “substantial, clearly articulated argument relying on established facts” constitutes a denial of procedural fairness – however, the primary judge had not denied procedural fairness by allegedly failing to address an argument that the conduct of the Police Force created an estoppel by convention – leave to appeal refused, and appeal dismissed as incompetent.
View Decision