24 July 2024 (which had been emailed) had not been received until 28 August 2024. There was a dispute between the parties as to when the claim had been received and thus duly made. 8. The matter was listed for conciliation conference/arbitration hearing at 2.00pm on

23 July 2025 via MS Teams. On 23 June 2025 the applicant's solicitors filed with the Commission a Notice of Ceasing to Act. No solicitors subsequently appeared for the applicant. The applicant did not attend at the conciliation conference/arbitration hearing on 23 July 2025, nor did anyone appear on behalf of the applicant. 9. Pursuant to s 54(c) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act) and r 77(a) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (PIC Rules) the proceedings were dismissed due to the applicant's failure to prosecute the proceedings with due dispatch. Written reasons for the dismissal of the proceedings were provided in a Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons dated 28 July 2025 (the COD). 10. The applicant seeks to have the decision of 28 July 2025 reconsidered.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

1. Both parties have provided submissions in respect to the application for reconsideration. The application for reconsideration is determined on the papers.

1. I grant leave to the insurer pursuant to s 48(3) and (4) of the PIC Act to be legally represented as the representation will enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter.

1. The applicant requests a reconsideration pursuant to s 57 of the PIC Act of the COD dated 28 July 2025. Section 57 of the PIC Act states:

"57 Reconsideration of decisions of Commission

(1) The Commission may reconsider any matter that has been dealt with by the Commission in the Workers Compensation Division or Police Officer Support Scheme Division and rescind, alter or amend any decision previously made or given by the Commission in that Division.

(2) If after the making of a decision by the Commission (and without limiting subsection (1)), the President is satisfied that the decision contains an obvious error, the President may -

(b) direct a registrar to alter the decision to correct the error.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), if the decision is contained in a certificate, the President may -

(a) issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected, or

(b) direct a registrar to issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected.

(4) If a decision is altered, the altered decision is taken to be the decision and notice of the alteration is to be given to the parties in the proceedings in the manner directed by the President.

(5) If a replacement certificate is issued, the certificate prevails over any previous certificate.

(6) Examples of obvious errors in a decision are where -

(a) there is an obvious clerical or typographical error in the text of the notice or statement, or

(b) there is an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, or

(d) there is an inconsistency between the stated decision and the stated reasons."

1. Roche ADP in Samuel v Sebel Furniture Limited [2006] NSWWCCPD 141 (Samuel) considered the issue of discretion in respect to reconsideration applications under s 350 of the 1998 Act. It is accepted law that the observations of Roche ADP in respect to the discretion under s 350 are applicable to s 57 of the PIC Act, the provisions being similar. At [58] of Samuel Roche ADP provided the following, often quoted, useful summary of the applicable principles to be considered in the exercise of the discretion:

"Having regard to the above authorities and the provisions and objectives of the 1998 Act I believe that the following principles are applicable to reconsideration applications under section 350(3) of the 1998 Act:

1. the section gives the Commission a wide discretion to reconsider its previous decisions ('Hardaker');
2. whilst the word 'decision' is not defined in section 350, it is defined for the purposes of section 352 to include "an award, order, determination, ruling and direction". In my view 'decision' in section 350(3) includes, but is not necessarily limited to, any award, order or determination of the Commission;
3. whilst the discretion is a wide one it must be exercised fairly with due regard to relevant considerations including the reason for and extent of any delay in bringing the application for reconsideration ('Schipp');
4. one of the factors to be weighed in deciding whether to exercise the discretion in favour of the moving party is the public interest that litigation should not proceed indefinitely ('Hilliger');
5. reconsideration may be allowed if new evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained at the first Arbitration is later obtained and that new evidence, if it had been put before an Arbitrator in the first hearing, would have been likely to lead to a different result ('Maksoudian');
6. given the broad power of 'review' in section 352 (which was not universally available in the Compensation Court of NSW) the reconsideration provision in section 350(3) will not usually be the preferred provision to be used to correct errors of fact, law or discretion made by Arbitrators;
7. depending on the facts of the particular case the principles enunciated by the High Court in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; (1981) 147 CLR 589 ('Anshun') may prevent a party from pursuing a claim or defence in later reconsideration proceedings if it unreasonably refrained from pursuing that claim or defence in the original proceedings ('Anshun');
8. a mistake or oversight by a legal adviser will not give rise to a ground for reconsideration ('Hurst'), and
9. the Commission has a duty to do justice between the parties according to the substantial merits of the case ('Hilliger' and section 354(3) of the 1998 Act)."
10. The applicant's application for reconsideration is misconceived. The relief sought by the applicant is not only that the COD dated 28 July 2025 be set aside but also:

(a) that the insurers dispute be dismissed and liability be determined in favour of the applicant;

(b) that the applicant's claim for lump sum compensation under s 66 of the 1987 Act be determined in favour of the applicant as claimed without referral to a Medical Assessor;

(c) that the applicant be awarded all statutory entitlements in accordance with the 1987 Act and the 1998 Act;

(d) that the applicant be awarded the payment of medical and related expenses, and

(e) that the applicant be awarded domestic assistance and ancillary entitlements in accordance with s 60AA of the 1987 Act.

1. This is not a proper request for reconsideration. The applicant is not seeking a reconsideration of the decision of 28 July 2025. What the applicant is seeking is a summary determination of all issues in his favour without the parties being heard which would be procedurally unfair and a denial of natural justice.
2. The applicant appears to misunderstand what a on the papers determination requires. The applicant appears to be under the impression that for there to be a determination on the papers that the evidence and pleadings lodged by the parties are considered by the Commission without detailed submissions from the parties. This is incorrect. At [21] of the COD of 28 July 2025 I refer to Procedural Direction PIC 2 which sets out the practice and procedure of the Commission when determining matters on the papers and the matters to be considered when determining whether a matter should be determined on the papers. Two of those matters are whether the parties have addressed all the relevant issues in their submissions and whether further submissions are required.
3. As noted at [22] of the determination neither party had provided submissions in the substantive matter stating:

"Considering the above factors neither party has provided submissions. Submissions will be required and the issues involved are complex in nature, both in respect to the legal and factual issues."

1. The applicant at Ground 6 of his submissions submits that:

"The Member failed to discharge the statutory duty to determine the claim according to law by refusing the Applicant's repeated and well-founded requests for a paper-based determination. Despite written submissions dated 8 July 2025 and 23 July 2025 that satisfied the majority of the Commission's published criteria for such a determination, and uncontested medical evidence establishing the Applicant's incapacity to attend any further hearing or Independent Medical Examination (IME) due to a deteriorating mental health condition and workplace-related psychological injury, the Member proceeded without giving proper consideration to those requests, in breach of Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW) s 48(7)."

1. Contrary to the applicant's submission the reasons as to why the matter is not suitable to be determined on the papers is discussed at [19] to [25] of the statement of reasons. The applicant does not in his submission in respect to the application for reconsideration identify any particular error in those reasons.
2. The applicant goes on in his submission to state that the matter had been allowed to proceed on the basis of an incorrect date for the making of the claim for permanent impairment compensation. This submission is factually incorrect. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether the claim for permanent impairment compensation had been duly made and therefore whether the Commission had jurisdiction to hear and determine that claim. There was and has been no determination by the Commission as to when the claim was made or in respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
3. For the above reasons I am of the view that this is not a proper application for reconsideration. The application for reconsideration is refused.