Blacktown City Council v Azar - [2025] NSWPICMP 836

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Blacktown City Council v Azar [2025] NSWPICMP 836
APPELLANT:	Blacktown City Council
RESPONDENT:	Ghanem Azar
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Christopher Oates
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Doron Sher
DATE OF DECISION:	29 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); relying only on the ground for appeal provided in section 327(3)(b); the information that the appellant contended was additional relevant information were several reports and films of surveillance of the respondent; Held – this information did not meet the terms of section 327(3)(b); if wrong the information would not result in the Appeal Panel forming a different opinion than that which the Medical Assessor did; application under rule 109 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules the appellant made for the Appeal Panel to receive the information was pointless as the proceedings are panel review proceedings and an Appeal Panel is neither the President nor the Commission; MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 11 August 2025 the Blacktown City Council, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr David Crocker, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 11 July 2025.
The appellant relies on the ground for appeal listed in s 327(3)(b) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), being “availability of additional relevant information (being additional information that was not available to, and that could not reasonably have been obtained by, the appellant before the medical assessment appealed against).”
The delegate is satisfied that, on the face of the application, at least one ground for appeal has been made out. The Appeal Panel has conducted a review of the original medical assessment but limited to the ground for appeal on which the appeal is made.
Rule 128 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (the PIC Rules) and Procedural Direction PIC7 - Appeals, reviews, reconsiderations and correction of obvious errors in medical disputes set out the practice and procedure in relation to the medical appeal process under s 328 of the 1998 Act. An Appeal Panel determines its own procedures in accordance with r 128(1) of the PIC Rules.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant employs Ghanem Azar as a swimming pool inspector. In the course of his employment on 24 May 2024 the respondent was driving to an aquatic facility to conduct a pool inspection. Whilst stationary in his vehicle he was struck from behind by another vehicle causing him to suffer an injury to his cervical spine, thoracic spine and lumbar spine.
On 5 March 2025 the respondent’s…

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 Blacktown City Council v Azar 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] NSWPICMP 836
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blacktown City Council v Azar involved the appellant, Blacktown City Council, appealing against a decision of the respondent, Azar, regarding a medical assessment certificate (MAC) under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The appellant sought to challenge the MAC, which was issued following an injury that Azar claimed to have sustained at work. The dispute came before the court as an appeal on a point of law, with the primary contention being the admissibility of additional evidence in the form of surveillance reports and films.

The court was tasked with determining whether the additional information proposed by the appellant constituted "additional relevant information" as defined by section 327(3)(b) of the Act. This required an examination of whether the new evidence, if accepted, would change the opinion of the Appeal Panel, given that the appellant had relied solely on this ground for appeal. The court had to consider if the information was relevant and if its inclusion would affect the outcome of the appeal.

Upon review, the court found that the additional information the appellant sought to introduce did not meet the criteria set out in section 327(3)(b). The court held that the surveillance reports and films were not relevant to the medical assessment, and even if considered, they would not have led the Appeal Panel to a different conclusion than that reached by the Medical Assessor. Consequently, the application for the Appeal Panel to consider this new information was deemed futile. The court further noted that the proceedings were panel review proceedings and that the Appeal Panel was neither the President nor the Commission, thus the application under rule 109 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules was inappropriate.

The court ultimately upheld the MAC, confirming the respondent's entitlement to the compensation as assessed. The appellant's application to have the additional information considered by the Appeal Panel was dismissed, and the MAC remained valid and enforceable.

Orders