Condron v Women's and Children's Health Network [No 3] [2026] SAET 12

(1) Subject to this section, the Corporation or a delegate of the Corporation must, at the request of a worker -

(a) provide the worker, within 45 days after the date of the request, with copies of all documentary material in the possession of the Corporation or the delegate relevant to a claim made by the worker; and

(b) make available for inspection by the worker (or a representative of the worker) all non-documentary material in the possession of the Corporation or the delegate relevant to a claim made by the worker.

(2) Non documentary material is to be made available for inspection -

(a) at a reasonable time and place agreed between the Corporation or delegate and the worker; or

(b) in the absence of agreement - at a public office of the Corporation or delegate nominated by the worker at a time (which must be at least 45 days, but not more than 60 days, after the request is made and during ordinary business hours) nominated by the worker.

(3) However, the Corporation or delegate is not obliged to provide copies of material, or to make material available for inspection by the worker if -

(a) the material is relevant to the investigation of suspected dishonesty in relation to the claim; or

(b) the material is protected by legal professional privilege; or

(c) the disclosure of the material could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

(4) A worker who is aggrieved by a decision under subsection (3) is entitled to a review of the decision by the Corporation or the delegate (as the case may be).

(5) An application for review under subsection (4) -

(a) must be made in accordance with the regulations; and

(b) must be made within 30 days after the day on which notice of the decision was given to the worker or within such longer period as the Corporation or delegate may allow.

(6) On an application for review, the Corporation or delegate may confirm, vary or reverse the decision under review.

(7) If the Corporation or delegate fails to make a decision on a review under subsection (6) within 14 days after the application for review is received under subsection (5), the Corporation or delegate will be taken to have confirmed the decision under review.

(8) A worker who is aggrieved by a decision under subsection (6) may apply to the Ombudsman for a review of the decision.

(9) An application for a review under subsection (8) -

(a) must be made in a manner and form determined by the Ombudsman; and

(b) must be made within 30 days after the day on which notice of the decision was given to the worker or within such longer period as the Ombudsman may allow.

(10) The Ombudsman may, in relation to a review under subsection (8) -

(a) exercise the powers of the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1972 as if carrying out an investigation under that Act, subject to such modifications as may be necessary, or as may be prescribed; and

(b) at the conclusion of the review confirm, vary or reverse the decision under review.

(11) For the purposes of a review of a decision of a self-insured employer under subsection (8), the self-insured employer will be taken to be an agency to which the Ombudsman Act 1972 applies.

(12) Section 17(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1972 does not apply in relation to a review under subsection (8).

(13) It will be taken to be a condition of registration as a self-insured employer that the employer will comply with any decision of the Ombudsman that relates to the employer under subsection (10).

(14) If the Ombudsman becomes aware that a self-insured employer has failed to comply with a decision of the Ombudsman that relates to the employer under subsection (10), the Ombudsman must advise the Corporation of the failure.

(15) If the Corporation or a delegate of the Corporation mistakenly provides material to a worker to which the worker is not entitled, the worker must return the material within a reasonable time after requested to do so by the Corporation or the delegate.

(16) In this section, a delegate of the Corporation includes a self-insured employer.

1. The respondent wrote to the applicant by letter dated 2 February 2026 which set out the steps that were undertaken by reference to s 180 of the RTW Act. By email transmission dated 26 August 2025, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the applicant's request, noted that the applicant had previously been provided with a full copy of her claim files for the period 2015 to July 2021 and that, in the circumstances, it was proposed that the respondent provide only the claim documents from July 2021 to August 2025. The applicant was aggrieved by that decision and applied to the Ombudsman for a review of it in accordance with s 180(8) of the RTW Act. Following that application the respondent agreed to provide, as had been requested by the applicant, an USB containing an electronic copy of the applicant's claims files from 2015 and on 9 October 2025. An USB, containing the relevant information to that date, was provided to the applicant by courier to her home address. On the same day, the respondent forwarded an email to the applicant confirming delivery of the USB.
2. Whilst the applicant has not denied receipt of the USB, the application for an order of the Tribunal has not been withdrawn.
3. For the purpose of addressing the current application, it suffices to note that the substantive proceeding involved an application by the applicant for the Tribunal to review a decision of the respondent which declined to pre approve the cost of a right total hip replacement procedure pursuant to s 33(17) of the RTW Act. For the reasons given by Calligeros DPJ in Condron v Women's and Children's Health Network [No 2][1], the application for review was dismissed and the decision of the respondent was confirmed. There has been no appeal from that decision.
4. There is an outstanding claim by the applicant for her costs of representation pursuant to s 106(1) of the RTW Act. The respondent has made an application for an adverse order against Ms Condron pursuant to s 106(3). Those applications are to be determined by Calligeros DPJ. The parties have also engaged in a process of adjudication before Calligeros DPJ. His Honour has reserved his decision. The applicant has sought a judicial settlement conference before the decision of Calligeros DPJ is delivered. The respondent has opposed a further judicial settlement conference. I presided over a judicial settlement conference between the parties on 17 February 2025. I have not been persuaded that it would be in the interests of justice for there to be a further conference. I am not persuaded that there would be a reasonable prospect of an agreed outcome.

1. In response to a request by the Tribunal for submissions as to why the order sought should be made, and how the documents relate to any matter that is currently before the Tribunal in this proceeding, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal is to correct "serious legal errors" that she contends influenced the making of the final order made in the substantive proceeding. The applicant sought to raise whether errors had been made in relation to the characterisation of her injuries and their status as accepted claims. She submitted:

Despite my injuries having been accepted, sequelae injuries were later incorrectly placed back in dispute. These injuries were not open to being re-argued or challenged again.

As a result:

• The incorrect legislation was applied to my case;

• My statutory entitlements were improperly limited or denied; and

• I suffered financial loss and prejudice.

This was not a medical disagreement; it was a legal error.

1. The applicant's submissions indicate a desire for the Tribunal to now take "corrective action" with respect to the claimed errors in the proceeding. In her submissions, the applicant referred to her belief that her former solicitors are responsible for errors that were made and which, as I understand the submissions, resulted in an erroneous final order dismissing her application for review by Calligeros DPJ in the substantive proceeding. She has asked the Tribunal to now ensure that "my matter is determined according to law".
2. The respondent appeared to submit that s 180 of the RTW Act provides a code for the disclosure and production of documents contained in a claims file, and the review procedures available to a worker.
3. The respondent submitted documents within the scope of an application pursuant to s 180 of the RTW Act had been provided, the substantive proceeding had been finalised apart from the appropriate order as to costs and there could be no utility in making the order sought by the applicant.

The power to prevent an abuse of the Tribunal's process

1. Section 41 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 (SA) (the SAET Act) empowers the Tribunal, relevantly, to dismiss a proceeding if it is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance, is being used for an improper purpose or is otherwise an abuse of process. In P v The State of South Australia (in right of South Australia Police)[2] a Full Bench held that s 41 of the SAET Act may apply in circumstances of an application in a substantive proceeding that seeks disclosure of documents.[3] It was also held that the Tribunal has an implied power to prevent an abuse of its process.[4] The substantive proceeding in this matter has already been dismissed on its merits.

1. I reject the submission of the respondent that s 180 of the RTW Act operates as a code with respect to the disclosure and the production of documents within a claims file. Section 180 appears in Part 12 of the RTW Act which contains miscellaneous provisions. It may operate without proceedings in the Tribunal. Where there are proceedings Part 4 of the SAET Act provides broad powers to the Tribunal to make orders and directions for disclosure of relevant documents and information. Those powers are not expressed to be subject to s 180 of the RTW Act. Similarly rr 56 and 57 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 (the SAET Rules) empower the Tribunal to make directions and orders in relation to the disclosure and production of documents directly relevant to an issue to be tried. The powers in the relevant provisions of the SAET Act and SAET Rules may operate together with s 180 of the RTW Act.
2. The application of the applicant dated 22 January 2026 must be dismissed for the following reasons:
   1. I am not persuaded, to the extent there has been an obligation to provide the applicant with documents in accordance with s 180 of the RTW Act, that the applicant has not already received relevant documents from the respondent.
   2. The application is frivolous as the production of the documents sought could not alter the effect of the final order of Calligeros DPJ, dismissing the applicant's application for review in the substantive proceeding.
   3. The application is vexatious as it has not been instituted with a sufficient ground and is serving only to cause annoyance to the respondent.
   4. It follows that the application should also be dismissed as lacking in substance.
   5. The stated purpose for seeking the documents is to purportedly correct legal errors made associated with the order made by Calligeros DPJ which dismissed the applicant's application for review in the substantive proceeding. It is an abuse of the process of the Tribunal, as the final order of Calligeros DPJ finalised the substantive proceeding apart from the question of costs and there has been no appeal from that order.
   6. The adjudication of costs has been concluded with the decision as to the allocator reserved. The application for a further judicial settlement conference has been refused. The documents sought, even if they were outstanding, are not relevant to any issue currently before the Tribunal in this proceeding.

1. The application for consent orders of the applicant dated 22 January 2026 is dismissed.
2. Any application for an order as to costs of that application is to be made by 13 February 2026.

[1] [2024] SAET 81.

[2] [2019] SAET 154.

[3] Ibid [22] (Rossi DPJ with whom Calligeros and Kelly DPJJ agreed).

[4] Ibid [23] (Rossi DPJ with whom Calligeros and Kelly DPJJ agreed).