Ahmadi v New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 402

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Ahmadi v New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 402
APPLICANT:	Pashtoonyar Ahmadi
RESPONDENT:	New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	13 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly benefits and medical treatment; accepted psychological injury; respondent conceded applicant had no work capacity; respondent relied on section 11A defence; action as to retrenchment/dismissal; after matter had proceeded to hearing and decision reserved respondent sought to re-open and adduce further evidence as to reasonableness of its action; opposed by applicant; Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga, Mason v Demasi, Pirie v Franklins Ltd, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd, Temelkov v Kemblawarra Portuguese Sports & Social Club Ltd, Hamad v Q Catering Limited, Irwin v Director General of Education, Northern New South Wales Local Health Network v Heggie, and Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 considered; Held – application to re-open refused; applicant’s injury predominantly caused by respondent’s action with respect to retrenchment; respondent’s action not reasonable; award for applicant of weekly benefits and medical expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent is to pay to the applicant weekly benefits compensation as follows: (a) from 27 March 2024 to 26 June 2024, pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, at the rate of $2,301.85 per week; and (b) from 27 June 2024 to date and continuing, pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, at the rate of $1,938.40 per week. 2. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s medical and related expenses, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Pashtoonyar Ahmadi (Mr Ahmadi/ “Pash”), was employed by the respondent, New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd (NEV) as a finance manager.
The applicant has sustained a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of his employment. The deemed date of injury is 26 March 2024, the date on which the applicant attended a meeting with Ms Selena Afeaki (director and chief executive officer (CEO)) in which he was advised that his position was to be made redundant.
The applicant’s position was made redundant on 27 March 2024.
The applicant’s psychological injury is claimed to be due to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of a disease.
The applicant apparently made a claim on 29 April 2024, with the date of injury claimed to have been from 2012 to 2018.
On 29 August 2024, the respondent’s insurer, EML, issued the applicant with a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).
EML disputed that the applicant had sustained a psychological injury; that employment was the main contributing factor to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ahmadi v New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPIC 402
Decision Date: 13 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Ahmadi, brought a claim against New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd for weekly benefits and medical treatment following an accepted psychological injury. The respondent conceded that the applicant had no work capacity. The dispute centred on the respondent's reliance on a section 11A defence, arguing that the psychological injury arose from the respondent's action regarding retrenchment or dismissal. The court had to determine the reasonableness of the respondent's action under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020.

The court examined the respondent's application to re-open the case and adduce further evidence concerning the reasonableness of its action. This application was made after the matter had proceeded to hearing and the decision was reserved. The applicant opposed the application. The court considered several precedents including Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga, Mason v Demasi, Pirie v Franklins Ltd, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd, Temelkov v Kemblawarra Portuguese Sports & Social Club Ltd, Hamad v Q Catering Limited, Irwin v Director General of Education, and Northern New South Wales Local Health Network v Heggie. The court held that the application to re-open the case was refused, finding that the applicant's injury was predominantly caused by the respondent's action regarding retrenchment and that the respondent's action was not reasonable.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant weekly benefits and medical expenses. The decision underscores the importance of the timing and circumstances in which a party seeks to adduce new evidence, particularly in workers compensation cases where the focus is on the reasonableness of the employer's actions in relation to the employee's injury. The court's refusal to re-open the case highlights the stringent requirements for such applications and reinforces the protection afforded to workers under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders