Background
365 Rehab Pty Ltd provided workplace rehabilitation services under an approval issued by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA). After an onsite evaluation, SIRA found that 365 Rehab had not met several conditions in the applicable approval framework. SIRA issued a show-cause notice, considered the company’s response, and on 28 September 2026 notified it that its approval was cancelled with immediate effect.
On the same day, SIRA also issued a purported limited approval expiring on 27 November 2026, apparently to facilitate the transition and winding down of existing matters. In judicial review proceedings, 365 Rehab challenged what it characterised as a single decision comprising both actions. Pending final determination, it sought orders effectively requiring SIRA and others to treat its earlier approval—due to run until June 2028—as remaining in force.
The Court’s Holding
Richardson J refused all of the interlocutory relief sought. Although 365 Rehab had a good prima facie case that SIRA lacked power to issue the limited approval without an application under the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 (NSW), it did not establish a prima facie case that this apparent invalidity also infected the cancellation. The documents and stated reasons indicated that cancellation and the limited approval were separate actions, rather than a combined decision or inseverable parts of one decision.
The Court also found no prima facie denial of procedural fairness concerning the cancellation. The show-cause process notified 365 Rehab of the relevant non-compliance, and the cancellation was expressly based on breaches of Conditions 2, 3 and 4. The requested restraints and mandatory notifications would, in substance, stay a cancellation that had already taken effect or reinstate the former approval—relief the Court considered unavailable or unwarranted. Because 365 Rehab declined alternative interim relief confined to the limited approval, no relief was granted despite the arguable invalidity of that instrument.
The Court additionally considered 365 Rehab’s available internal review, the prospect of an expedited final hearing, and the public interest in SIRA’s regulation of workplace rehabilitation providers. It ordered 365 Rehab to pay SIRA’s costs of the interlocutory application, subject to any written application to vary that order.
Key Takeaways
- An arguable defect in one administrative action will not necessarily invalidate a separate decision made and communicated at the same time.
- A court generally cannot stay an administrative decision that has already taken effect or use interlocutory orders to restore the previous legal position.
- Applicants should frame alternative interim relief precisely; 365 Rehab’s refusal to seek relief limited to the arguably invalid limited approval was consequential.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the importance of separating related regulatory actions when seeking urgent judicial review. Even where part of a regulator’s response may be beyond power, an applicant must establish a sufficient connection before that defect can support interim relief against another, independently effective decision.
It also underscores the difficulty of obtaining interlocutory relief against public-protection measures. Courts will weigh the regulator’s findings and the public interest heavily, particularly where other review mechanisms are available and a prompt final hearing can occur.