Legal Research
Cases
Emami v Transit Systems

Emami v Transit Systems

Case [2025] NSWPIC 80 10 March 2025

Workers Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Emami v Transit Systems [2025] NSWPIC 80
APPLICANT:	Faramarz Emami
RESPONDENT:	Transit Systems West Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
DATE OF DECISION:	10 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for psychological injury; claims for weekly benefits compensation and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60; consideration of applicant’s and witnesses’ statements, video footage, medical reports and other treatment records, claim correspondence, as well as factual material; respondent accepts that the applicant sustained a psychological injury to which his employment was the main contributing factor and accepts that the applicant has no current work capacity as a result but relies upon a defence to his claim pursuant to section 11A; consideration of whether the respondent can establish that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to performance appraisal or dismissal or discipline; consideration of whether the respondent can establish the reasonableness of the actions taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to performance appraisal or dismissal or discipline; Northern NSW Local Health Network v Heggie, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Pirie v Franklins Limited, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Limited v Doyle, Insurance Australia Group Services Pty Limited v Outram, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Limited, Temelkov v Kemblawarra Portugese Sports and Social Club Limited, Smith v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, Drca v KAB Seating Systems Pty Ltd, Melder v Ausbowl Pty Limited, Buxton v Bi-Lo Pty Ltd, Ritchie v Department of Community Services, Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles & Anor, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle v Broad, and Rail Corporation NSW v Aravanopules considered; Held – the respondent has failed to establish (pursuant to section 11A) that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to performance appraisal or dismissal or discipline; awards for the applicant for weekly benefits compensation and expenses pursuant to section 60.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. I amend the name of the respondent (as advised by it in its reply) to Transit Systems West Services Pty Ltd. 2. I amend the Application to Resolve a Dispute so that the applicant’s injury is pleaded as an occupational disease with a deemed date of 14 February 2024. 3. As a result of the applicant’s involvement in a motor vehicle accident on 29 January 2024, as well as the respondent’s processes and actions from that date with regard to its investigation into the accident and its subsequent disciplining of the applicant, the applicant has sustained an injury (deemed to have occurred on 14 February 2024) pursuant to s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), being…

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 Emami v Transit Systems

Details

AGLC: Emami v Transit Systems [2025] NSWPIC 80
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 80
Decision Date: 10 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Emami v Transit Systems, the applicant, Mr. Emami, sought weekly benefits compensation and treatment expenses for a psychological injury he claimed arose from his employment with the respondent. The case was heard in a relevant workers compensation tribunal, which was tasked with determining whether the respondent's actions in relation to performance appraisal or dismissal or discipline were the primary cause of Mr. Emami's psychological injury and whether any actions taken were reasonable. The respondent conceded that Mr. Emami had indeed sustained a psychological injury and that his employment was the main contributing factor, but contested the claim by invoking section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, arguing that the injury was caused by its actions or proposed actions.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting section 11A of the Act and determining whether the respondent could prove that Mr. Emami's psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by actions taken or proposed to be taken with respect to performance appraisal or dismissal or discipline. Additionally, the court had to assess whether any actions taken by the respondent were reasonable. The tribunal considered various pieces of evidence, including statements from Mr. Emami and witnesses, video footage, medical reports, other treatment records, claim correspondence, and relevant factual material. The tribunal also referenced several precedent cases to aid in its decision-making process.

After thorough consideration of the evidence and legal precedents, the tribunal concluded that the respondent had not established that Mr. Emami's psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to performance appraisal or dismissal or discipline. The court found that the respondent's defence under section 11A was not substantiated. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favour of Mr. Emami, awarding him weekly benefits compensation and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders