Brody Justin Thomson v WorkSafe Commissioner
Commissioner Emmanuel
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Brody Justin Thomson
Respondent: WorkSafe Commissioner
Ratio
The Tribunal set aside an internal review decision pursuant to s229A(5)(b) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA) by consent, on the basis that the internal review had not been properly conducted. The Tribunal remitted the matter for a substitute internal review to be conducted in conformity with applicable law and procedure, with specific directions requiring the reviewer to properly consider whether the applicant's Master's degree in Mining Engineering constitutes the required degree or its equivalent, and to provide detailed reasons within 14 days.
Outcome
Resolved
partial
Authority signal
Not yet cited by other cases
Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority,
green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data,
amber = caution, red = treated negatively.
Key facts · 6
- Applicant filed application for external review at Work Health and Safety Tribunal on 9 October 2025
- Internal review decision dated 3 October 2025 was under challenge
- Reviewable decision was dated 12 August 2025
- Dispute concerns whether applicant's Master of Engineering Technology (Mining Engineering) degree constitutes required degree in mining engineering from Australian university or its equivalent
- Applicant holds AQF Level 9 qualifications
- Both applicant and WorkSafe Commissioner sought consent orders
Factors
For
- Consent of both applicant and decision-maker to set aside and remit
- Statutory power under s229A(5)(b) to set aside without completing external review
- Procedural deficiency in original internal review identified by parties
Against
Concept tags · 5
Principles · 2
articulates para 5
Where an internal review has not been properly conducted in accordance with applicable law and procedure, the Tribunal may set aside the decision by consent under s229A(5)(b) and remit for a substitute review, rather than proceeding to external review.
articulates para 8
An internal reviewer must be adequately informed and should seek additional information from the applicant as necessary to properly conduct an internal review, particularly where qualification equivalency is in issue.
Archived text (524 words)
APPLICATION FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 229 OF THE WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 2020
THE WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY TRIBUNAL
PARTIES Brody Justin Thomson
APPLICANT
-v-
WorkSafe Commissioner
RESPONDENT
CORAM Commissioner T Emmanuel
DATE TUESday, 25 November 2025
FILE NO/S WHST 8 OF 2025
CITATION NO. 2025 WAIRC 00936
Result Order issued
Representation
Applicant On his own behalf
Respondent Mr M Blundell (of counsel)
Order
WHEREAS this is an application for an external review of a decision under s 229 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA);
AND WHEREAS the applicant filed an application at the Work Health and Safety Tribunal (Tribunal) on 9 October 2025;
AND WHEREAS the applicant disputes that the internal review on 3 October 2025 of the reviewable decision made on 12 August 2025 was correct;
AND WHEREAS the applicant and the decision-maker have asked the Tribunal to make consent orders reflecting their agreement to resolve the matter on the basis of the internal review decision being set aside and a substitute internal review being properly conducted in conformity with the applicable law and procedure;
AND WHEREAS in accordance with s 229A(6) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA), the Tribunal may act under s 229A(5)(b) and set aside the decision with the agreement of the applicant and the decision-maker without starting or completing the external review;
NOW THEREFORE the Tribunal orders, by consent, that –
1. the internal review decision of the respondent dated 3 October 2025, being a review of the reviewable decision made on 12 August 2025, is set aside;
2. the respondent’s properly appointed person shall review the reviewable decision in accordance with the Work Health and Safety (Mines) Regulations 2022 (WA) and the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA), and make a decision within the period stipulated in regulation 680 of the Work Health and Safety (Mines) Regulations 2022 (WA);
3. further to order 2 above and without limiting or qualifying the application of the Work Health and Safety (Mines) Regulations 2022 (WA) or the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA), the substitute internal reviewer appointed by the respondent shall ensure that they are adequately informed in order to determine whether they require any additional information from the applicant so as to properly conduct the substitute internal review. In particular:
3.1. the substitute internal review shall consider whether the applicant’s degree Masters of Engineering Technology (Mining Engineering) constitutes a degree in mining engineering from an Australian university (Required Degree), alternatively the equivalent of a qualification approved by the Mining Competence Advisory Committee to be equivalent to the Required Degree;
3.2. the decision by the substitute internal review shall be delivered within 14 days after the date these orders are made;
3.3. such decision shall provide detailed reasons, including explanation of how equivalency was assessed, and the basis for accepting or rejecting the applicant’s AQF Level 9 qualifications; and
3.4. if the decision by the substitute internal review confirms the reviewable decision made on 12 August 2025, the applicant shall have the right to apply to the Tribunal for an external review of that decision.
Commissioner T Emmanuel