Legal Research
Cases
Baghdadi v Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd

Baghdadi v Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd

Case [2024] NSWPIC 519 18 September 2024

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Baghdadi v Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 519
APPLICANT:	Karim Baghdadi
RESPONDENT:	Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Sophie Jones
DATE OF DECISION:	18 September 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); claim for weekly payments of compensation pursuant to sections 36 and 37 of the 1987 Act; whether the applicant was a worker pursuant to section 4 of the 1998 Act or a deemed worker pursuant to clause 2 of Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act; Held – the applicant was not a worker or deemed worker; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant was not a worker pursuant to s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 2. The applicant was not a deemed worker pursuant to cl 2 of Schedule 1 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 3. Award in favour of the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 14 March 2024, Mr Karim Baghdadi (the applicant) was working at a building site in Granville when he fell backwards down a flight of steps, a distance of about 4m. The applicant sustained multiple injuries and was treated at Westmead Hospital.
The applicant alleges he was employed at the relevant time by Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd (the respondent) and sustained head injuries, facial fractures, neck injury and post-traumatic stress disorder in the course of that employment.
The applicant made a claim on the insurer for weekly payments of compensation. The respondent issued a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 31 May 2024, denying liability for the applicant's claim on the basis that he was neither a worker (as defined in s 4 of the 1998 Act) nor a deemed worker (as defined in cl 2 of Schedule 1 of the 1998 Act).
The present proceedings were commenced by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute (Application) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 6 June 2024.
The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to ss 36 and 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for weekly payments of compensation for the period from 14 March 2024 to date and continuing.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant was a “worker” pursuant to s 4 of the 1998 Act;
(b) whether the applicant was a “deemed worker” pursuant to cl 2 of Schedule 1 of the 1998 Act, and if so,
(c) the extent and quantification of the applicant’s entitlement to weekly payments of compensation for the period from 14 March 2024 to date and continuing, pursuant to ss 36 and 37 of the 1987 Act, including the calculation of the applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE).
The following matter was not in dispute between 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.

Continue reading Baghdadi v Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Baghdadi v Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 519
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 519
Decision Date: 18 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Baghdadi v Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd, the applicant, Baghdadi, sought a determination regarding his eligibility for weekly payments of compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, following an injury sustained during his employment. The respondent, Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd, contested the claim, arguing that Baghdadi did not qualify as a worker under the relevant legislation. The dispute was ultimately heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether Baghdadi was a worker within the meaning of section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 or if he could be considered a deemed worker pursuant to clause 2 of Schedule 1 of the same Act. The court needed to assess whether Baghdadi’s employment status and the nature of his work met the criteria for compensation eligibility. This involved examining the terms of the employment agreement and the specific circumstances of the injury.

The court concluded that Baghdadi did not satisfy the definition of a worker under section 4 of the 1998 Act. Additionally, he did not qualify as a deemed worker under clause 2 of Schedule 1 of the same Act. The court found that the nature of his employment and the terms of the agreement did not align with the legislative criteria for compensation eligibility. As a result, the court dismissed Baghdadi’s claim and awarded costs to Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd.

Infinity Cabling Group Pty Ltd was granted an award for costs, reflecting the court's decision that Baghdadi's claim was not substantiated under the relevant workers' compensation legislation. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of meeting specific legislative criteria for workers' compensation claims, emphasising the need for a clear understanding of employment status and the terms of employment agreements.

Orders