Farkoosh v Commercial Skip Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 523

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Farkoosh v Commercial Skip Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] NSWPIC 523
APPLICANT:	Majid Zeighami Farkoosh
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Commercial Skip Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare)
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Omar Maamari
MEMBER:	Michael Moore
DATE OF DECISION:	1 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation and payment of medical expenses; issues of “worker”, injury, and incapacity; Held – applicant was a worker within the meaning of the Act; applicant had suffered injury to low back with consequential condition of adjustment disorder; award for respondent in respect of other alleged injuries; award under section 37 for a closed period claim; general award under section 60.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. The applicant was employed by the first respondent between mid 2020 and 20 August 2021 and was a worker within the meaning of s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 2. The first respondent was uninsured for workers compensation liability and is deregistered. 3. The applicant suffered an injury in the course of his employment in the nature of the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease, namely a degenerative condition of the low back, to which the applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 4. The deemed date of injury is 20 August 2021 being the date of incapacity. 5. There will be awards for the respondent in respect of the alleged injuries to the applicant’s neck and left and right knees. 6. The applicant suffered a consequential condition, being an adjustment disorder, as a result of his low back injury. 7. The applicant had no current work capacity between 16 June 2022 and 27 March 2023. 8. There will be an award that the second respondent pay the applicant weekly compensation as follows: (a) from 16 June 2022 to 30 September 2022 at the rate of $688 per week pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and (b) from 1 October 2022 to 27 March 2023 at the rate of $711.20 per week pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 9. The second respondent is to have credit for any payments of weekly compensation paid in respect of the periods covered by the above awards. 10. There will be an award that the second respondent pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and related treatment expenses in respect of the applicant’s low back injury and consequential condition of an adjustment disorder pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 11. Each party is to have liberty to apply to the Commission in respect of the form of these orders and awards with any such liberty to be exercised within seven days hereof. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In this matter…

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 Farkoosh v Commercial Skip Pty Ltd 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] NSWPIC 523
Decision Date: 1 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Farkoosh v Commercial Skip Pty Ltd, the applicant sought compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for weekly compensation and the payment of medical expenses. The dispute involved the definition of a “worker” under the Act, the nature and cause of the injuries claimed, and the extent of any incapacity resulting from those injuries. The case was heard by the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant qualified as a worker under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, whether the injuries claimed were indeed sustained in the course of employment, and the degree of incapacity resulting from those injuries. The applicant alleged a low back injury and a consequential adjustment disorder, while the respondent contested both the nature of the injuries and the applicant's capacity for work.

The court found that the applicant was a worker within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. It determined that the applicant had indeed suffered a low back injury and a consequential adjustment disorder. However, the court rejected the applicant's claims regarding other alleged injuries. Consequently, the court awarded compensation for the recognised injuries, including weekly payments and medical expenses related to the low back injury and adjustment disorder. The court also awarded compensation under section 37 for a closed period claim, and a general award under section 60.

Orders