Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
2025/00311908
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 14/10/2025 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 1.5 MB) |
| 9/2/2026 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 328.8 KB) |
| 10/3/2026 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 352.0 KB) |
| 18/3/2026 | Appellant |
Reply (PDF, 235.7 KB) |
WORKERS COMPENSATION – on 15 October 2020, Mr Bishop, during the course of his employment, sustained injury to his left shoulder and neck while connecting a tow bar to the back of a utility vehicle – Mr Bradley Bishop was employed by Qantas Airways Ltd (Qantas) as a baggage handler – Qantas accepted liability under the workers compensation legislation in respect of Mr Bishop’s injuries – on 6 June 2024, Mr Bishop’s treating orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Harper, requested that Qantas approve the proposed surgery to Mr Bishop’s left shoulder – Qantas disputed liability for the proposed surgery because the surgery included the use of a prosthesis that was not listed on the Department of Health Prostheses List – before the Personal Injury Commission Mr Bishop claimed the sum of $9,380 for the cost of left shoulder pyrocarbon hemi-arthroplasty and the costs incidental to the surgery – Senior Member Haddock determined that Qantas was liable for the cost of left shoulder pyrocarbon hemi-arthroplasty and costs incidental to the surgery – Qantas challenged the decision before Deputy President Michael Snell (the primary judge) – Mr Bishop filed a notice of contention raising that Senior Member Haddock erred in finding that the Workers Compensation (Private Hospital Maximum Rates) Order 2024 was not ultra vires s62(1A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) – the primary judge held that Senior Member Haddock made an error of law in finding that subsections 62(6) and 62(6A) of the Workers Compensation Act conferred power on the Personal Injury Commission to direct Qantas to pay an amount in excess of that fixed by the Authority for ‘any particular hospital treatment’ per s 62(1A) – the primary judge further dismissed Mr Bishop’s notice of contention – whether the primary judge failed to hold that the Workers Compensation (Private Hospital Maximum Rates) Order 2024 is ultra vires its parent act, the Workers Compensation Act – whether the primary judge failed to otherwise enter an award pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act for left shoulder pyrocarbon hemi-arthroplasty and associated expenses.
Qantas Airways Ltd v Bishop [2025] NSWPICPD 53
Last updated: