Standing under ss 287 and 288 does not expand the PIC’s power to grant declaratory relief.
The worker was employed as a National Health Safety, Environment and Quality Manager, initially based in NSW. In 2024, the worker relocated to Perth with the employer’s agreement, which the employer understood to be temporary.
In April 2025, a WorkCover WA Certificate of Capacity recorded work-related stress. The employer did not hold WA workers compensation insurance.
The NSW insurer disputed liability on the basis that the employment was not connected to NSW for the purposes of s9AA of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (1987 Act).
The employer commenced proceedings seeking determination under s9AA of the worker’s state of connection.
The worker did not file a Reply and confirmed through her solicitor that she was pursuing her claim under the WA scheme.
Senior Member Holman dismissed the application under s54(b) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 as frivolous, vexatious or otherwise misconceived, on two bases.
The first basis was the employer’s standing. Sections 287(1) and 288(1) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (1998 Act) permit a party to refer ‘a dispute in connection with a claim for compensation’.
Senior Member Holman accepted the principle in Transport Contract Services (NSW) Pty Ltd v Employers Mutual NSW Ltd [2022] NSWPICPD 47 (Transport) that an employer may have standing to dispute an insurer’s decision. However, the principle did not apply because the worker had not made a claim for compensation under the NSW Acts, having lodged no claim under ss65 and 66 of the 1998 Act or the SIRA Guidelines.
Senior Member Holman distinguished Transport (in which a claim had been made) and followed ASF Australia Pty Ltd v iCare Workers Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 604 (ASF), where the worker was not pursuing NSW entitlements. As in ASF, the worker could not be compelled to pursue a NSW claim and her conduct was inconsistent with an intention to do so.
The second basis was power. Even if standing existed, Senior Member Holman determined the PIC had no power to grant the relief sought. Its jurisdiction under s105(1) is confined to matters arising under the 1987 and 1998 Acts and does not include a freestanding power to make declaratory or advisory determinations (Widdup v Hamilton [2006] NSWWCCPD 258; Raniere Nominees Pty Limited v Daley [2006] NSWCA 235).
This decision is a useful reminder for insurers and employers dealing with cross-border employment scenarios where a worker elects to pursue a claim in another State’s scheme.
An employer cannot create PIC jurisdiction over a s9AA dispute simply by challenging the insurer’s position; there must be an actual NSW claim on foot.
Insurers should verify whether the worker has lodged a compliant NSW claim and whether the worker supports the employer’s application before addressing the s9AA merits.
Employers with genuine premium or work injury management concerns arising from a disputed state of connection should consider framing their dispute as one connected to an actual claim for compensation, rather than seeking an advisory ruling.
The decision reinforces that the PIC’s powers are limited to those conferred by legislation and that it is not a forum for resolving abstract or hypothetical jurisdictional questions.