Link to decision Link to video

Key takeaways

Compromised resolution of disputes is an appropriate and common outcome in the Personal Injury Commission (PIC).
Until now, those agreements have often been formalised by a consent order discontinuing the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), with the payment of compensation and other terms set out in notations.

In the recent decision of Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd v Clark Chesaites [2026] NSWPICPD 22 (Sentinel), Deputy President Adam Searle determined that the PIC lacks the power to order the discontinuance of any proceeding, even by consent.

As a result, where agreement is reached, parties to PIC proceedings will need to consider alternative ways to formalise their settlement and bring proceedings to an end.

Brief facts

The worker commenced proceedings challenging the insurer’s s 11A defence and claiming weekly benefits. In an unusual course, Replies were filed by both the insurer (first respondent) and employer (second respondent), though Member Whiffin saw no obstacle to this.

Early in the proceedings, the insurer and worker resolved the dispute between them by agreement and sought to enter consent orders. The employer argued that despite this agreement, they were entitled to maintain the dispute, and have it determined.

The Member entered the consent orders, namely that the matter was discontinued and the requirement to file an election to discontinue was dispensed with. The balance of the agreement between the worker and insurer was reflected in notations.

The employer (by then self-represented) filed an appeal seeking to challenge the ‘interlocutory decision/orders’ made by the Member. The employer sought an outcome whereby the Member’s ‘decision’ was sent aside, and the matter remitted for formal hearing of the s 11A defence.

The insurer did not support the appeal and argued that the employer did not have standing to lodge an appeal in its own right.

The employer disputed this, arguing that as a party to the proceedings, it had the same procedural rights as any other.

Judgment

In a decision dated 19 May 2026, Deputy President Adam Searle noted there was no direct authority on the question of the employer’s standing to bring the appeal but, ultimately, did not consider it was a question he had to answer.
Instead, the Deputy President considered the Commission’s power to enter the order agreed between the worker and the insurer.

He noted Rule 71 of the PIC Rules provides:

1. If the parties to Commission proceedings about a dispute, or some of the parties, agree on the terms of an order to determine the dispute, the Commission may determine a dispute between the parties by making the order, provided the order is an order the Commission otherwise has power to make.

Noting the above, the Deputy President confirmed that despite the employer’s objection, the PIC could still make an order, so long as it had the power to do so.

Critically, it was the Deputy President’s view that the PIC did not have the power to order a discontinuance of any proceeding, even by consent.

He confirmed there are only two ways in which proceedings can be brought to an end, other than by substantive determination.

They are:

1. Dismissal of proceedings under s 54 of the 2020 Act and Rule 77 of the PIC Rules, if for example the applicant has ‘failed to prosecute the proceedings with due despatch’.
2. Discontinuance by the applicant under Rule 76

With the above ‘covering the field’ the Deputy President concluded there was no power to make any order discontinuing proceedings, even if the parties’ consent or ask the PIC to so.

That being the case, and in the circumstances at hand, the Deputy President found the only ‘decisions’ made by the Member were procedural ones, to dispense with the procedural requirements and vacate the hearing date.

Because those decisions were not capable of appeal under s 352 of the 1998 Act, the employer’s appeal was dismissed.

Implications

Workers’ compensation disputes are often complex, both from a technical and evidentiary perspective.

In that context, and where substantive determination poses a risk on both sides, compromised resolution is both sensible and desirable.

Importantly, the terms of any agreement should always be carefully prepared to ensure they properly and unambiguously reflect the parties’ understanding.

The decision in Sentinel adds another layer to this consideration, precluding resolution on terms including an order that the proceedings are discontinued, even by consent.

Parties to PIC proceedings should be mindful of this development during negotiations, and ensure that any agreed terms are within the Commission’s power to enter.