| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | ||||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | ||||||
| STATUS: Confirmed in Court of Appeal - Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v Adnan Al Othmani [2012] NSWCA 45 (22 March 2012) | ||||||
| CITATION: | Al Othmani v Massoud and anor [2010] NSWWCCPD 129 | |||||
| APPELLANT: | Adnan Al Othmani | |||||
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Raymond Tannous Massoud and Antoine Massoud | |||||
SECOND RESPONDENT INSURER | Uninsured Liability-Agent for New South Wales WorkCover Scheme Uninsured | |||||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1 7269/09 | |||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Ms C Rimmer | |||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 3 March 2010 | |||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 10 December 2010 | |||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Deemed worker, intention to create legal relations; contract of employment, Schedule 1 clause 2 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 | |||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Acting Deputy President Lorna McFee | |||||
| HEARING: | 6 and 24 September 2010 | |||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Mr Gornley SC instructed by Koutzoumis Lawyers | ||||
| First Respondent Second Respondent: | No appearance Mr Dodd instructed by DLA Phillips Fox | |||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | Paragraph (1) of the Arbitrator’s determination of 3 March 2010 is confirmed. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitrator’s determination of 3 March 2010 are revoked and the following orders made:
| |||
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
The appellant, Adnan Al Othmani, who is 36 years of age, suffered injury on 24 June 2006. He fell through sheeting (also referred to as a pergola) on a roof of a house to the ground. As a result of the fall, Mr Al Othmani sustained a severe back injury which resulted in paraplegia.
On 10 September 2009, Mr Al Othmani lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) in the Commission, in which he alleged that his employers were the house owners, Raymond Tannous Massoud (Mr Massoud) and Antoine Massoud, who were joined as first respondent. Proceedings were also commenced against Uninsured Liability – Agent for New South Wales WorkCover Scheme (WorkCover) as the second respondent because the first respondent was uninsured.
Mr Al Othmani notified the first respondent of the injury and made a claim for compensation on 24 March 2009.
WorkCover issued a s 74 notice disputing Mr Al Othmani’s entitlement to workers compensation on the basis that he was not a worker or a deemed worker.
The Commission listed the matter for conciliation and arbitration on 11 December 2009. Mr Al Othmani and WorkCover were represented. Oral evidence from Mr Al Othmani and Mr Massoud was taken and lengthy written submissions provided.
The Arbitrator identified the issues in dispute to be:
(a) whether the applicant was a worker as defined in s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) employed by the first respondent;
(b) whether the applicant was a worker as…
Continue reading Al Othmani v Massoud
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Al Othmani v Massoud [2010] NSWWCCPD 129
- Case
- [2010] NSWWCCPD 129
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's role and relationship with the respondent constituted a contract of employment, which would entitle him to workers' compensation benefits. The court examined the provisions of Schedule 1 clause 2 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, which outlines the criteria for a deemed worker. The court also considered the intention of the parties to create legal relations, as well as the nature of the work performed by the appellant.
The court found that the appellant's role and the circumstances surrounding the agreement between the parties did not meet the criteria for a contract of employment as defined by the act. The court held that the appellant was not a deemed worker and, therefore, was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The court also determined that the intention to create legal relations did not transform the appellant's role into an employment relationship. As a result, the court confirmed paragraph (1) of the Arbitrator’s determination and revoked paragraphs (2) and (3), remitting the matter to a different arbitrator for further determination.
In light of the court's findings, it ordered that the matter be remitted to a different arbitrator for determination of all outstanding issues. Additionally, the court ordered that the second respondent pay the appellant's costs of the first arbitration and the costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed. The decision clarifies the scope of the act and the requirements for a deemed worker status, providing guidance for future cases involving similar issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
Paragraph (1) of the Arbitrator’s determination of 3 March 2010 is confirmed.
Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitrator’s determination of 3 March 2010 are revoked and the following orders made:
1. The matter is remitted to a different arbitrator for determination of all outstanding issues in accordance with the reason in this decision.
1. The second respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of the first arbitration.
1. The second respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.