Legal Research
Cases
Antoniak v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd

Antoniak v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd

Case [2025] NSWPIC 558 16 October 2025

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Antoniak v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 558
APPLICANT:	Kabir Antoniak
RESPONDENT:	The Star Entertainment Group Ltd
MEMBER:	Diana Benk
DATE OF DECISION:	16 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly payments; respondent sought dismissal of proceedings on the basis of Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (Anshun) estoppel; Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Limited, and Clayton v Bant considered and applied; Held – respondent failed to establish that the rights subject to the estoppel claim correspond with the rights that should have been the subject of the first proceeding; respondent further failed to establish it was unreasonable for the applicant not have to have claimed weekly compensation in the earlier proceedings; applicant not estopped from bringing a claim for weekly benefits; respondent liable to pay weekly benefits pursuant to sections 36, 37(1), and 37(2).
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. The applicant is not estopped from bringing a claim for weekly compensation benefits. The Commission orders: 2. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation as follows: (a) $1,668.42 per week from 12 February 2019 to 13 May 2019 under s 36(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; (b) $1,404.98 per week from 14 May 2019 to 26 May 2019 under s 37(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; (c) $859.71 per week from 27 May 2019 to 2 June 2019 under s 37(2)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; (d) $325.87 per week from 10 June 2019 to 16 August 2021 under s 37(2)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and (e) the respondent is to be given credit for any payments made. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In these proceedings, the Star Entertainment Group Ltd (the respondent) seeks an order that the proceedings commenced by Kabir Antoniak (the applicant) be dismissed on the basis of Anshun estoppel.[1] Whilst the parties were able to agree on quantum and extent of incapacity, the issue of estoppel required determination. Given this, the matter proceeded to arbitration. Mr Tanner of counsel instructed by Mr Chow represented the applicant. Mr Robinson of counsel instructed by Ms Walsh represented the respondent. Ms Barham was the insurer representative.
[1] Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589.

MATTERS NOT IN DISPUTE

The matter has had an extraordinarily protracted litigation history over six years commencing in 2019 in the Workers Compensation Commission and ultimately the subject of further arbitration and written submissions in September 2025 in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). As Anshun is the only component of the dispute that remains “live”, I will in the interests of brevity only refer to key points in the history:
(a) the applicant claimed a compensable psychological injury deemed to have been received on 7 January 2019 and sought weekly compensation and s 60 expenses…

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.

Continue reading Antoniak v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Antoniak v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 558
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 558
Decision Date: 16 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Antoniak v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd, the plaintiff, Antoniak, brought proceedings against the defendant, The Star Entertainment Group Ltd, seeking weekly payments under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The defendant sought to dismiss the proceedings on the basis that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming the weekly payments by virtue of the Anshun estoppel, derived from the case of Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd. The plaintiff had previously made a claim for compensation, which did not include a claim for weekly payments. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have raised the claim for weekly payments in the initial proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether the Anshun estoppel applied to prevent the plaintiff from bringing the current claim for weekly payments. This involved assessing whether the rights subject to the estoppel in the earlier proceedings corresponded with the rights that should have been the subject of that proceeding. Additionally, the court had to consider whether it was unreasonable for the plaintiff not to have claimed weekly compensation in the earlier proceedings.

The court found that the defendant failed to establish that the rights subject to the estoppel corresponded with the rights that should have been the subject of the first proceeding. It was also determined that it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff not to have claimed weekly compensation in the earlier proceedings. The court considered the cases of Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Limited and Clayton v Bant, which provided further guidance on the application of the Anshun estoppel. Consequently, the defendant's application to dismiss the proceedings was dismissed, and the plaintiff was not estopped from bringing the claim for weekly benefits. The court held that the defendant was liable to pay weekly benefits pursuant to sections 36, 37(1), and 37(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders