Islam v Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express (No. 3)

DETERMINATION OF RECONSIDERATION APPLICATION IN RESPECT OF A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER
CITATION:	Islam v Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express (No. 3) [2025] NSWPICPD 24
APPELLANT:	Tawfiqul Islam
RESPONDENT:	Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express
INSURER:	Coles Group Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W7948/22
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF RECONSIDERATION DECISION:	24 March 2025
ORDERS MADE ON RECONSIDERATION:	1. The application for reconsideration of the decision in Islam v Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express [2024] NSWPICPD 80 and *Islam*v Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express (No. 2) [2025] NSWPICPD 23 is declined.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Section 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 – reconsideration of decisions
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
Ms B Walsh, solicitor
Hall & Wilcox Lawyers
DECISIONS UNDER RECONSIDERATION:	Islam v Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express [2024] NSWPICPD 80; Islam v Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express(No. 2) [2025] NSWPICPD 23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER’S DECISIONS:	10 December 2024; 21 March 2025

BACKGROUND

Mr Tawfiqul Islam (the appellant) brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) against his former employer, Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express (the respondent), claiming weekly payments and treatment expenses.
A Member of the Commission issued a Certificate of Determination on 28 September 2023, as well as two reconsideration decisions issued on 15 December 2023 and 24 April 2024. The appellant appealed the decisions to a Presidential member pursuant to s 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). I determined the appeal and issued a decision on 10 December 2024,[1] in which I:
(a) confirmed the Member’s order that the respondent pay the appellant’s treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987;
(b) confirmed the Member’s determination that the appellant’s psychological condition was secondary to his physical conditions, and
(c) revoked the Member’s determination of the appellant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings.
[1] Islam v Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express [2024] NSWPICPD 80 (Islam No 1).
I remitted the matter to a different member for the calculation of the appellant’s entitlement to weekly payments of compensation in accordance with my reasons.
The appellant lodged an application for reconsideration of my decision. I issued a decision on 21 March 2025,[2] declining the application for reconsideration for the reasons set out therein.
[2] Islam v Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express (No. 2) [2025] NSWPICPD 23 (Islam No 2).
On the same day as the reconsideration decision was issued, the appellant lodged a further application for reconsideration.

CONSIDERATION

The appellant’s most recent application for reconsideration raises the same complaints as were raised in the first application for reconsideration. For the same reasons as those expressed by me in Islam No 2, I decline to reconsider my decision in Islam No 1 and in Islam No 2.
I note that the appellant’s entitlement to weekly payments is yet to be determined by a non-presidential member, as that dispute was stayed pending the outcome of the application for reconsideration. I further note that if the appellant is dissatisfied with my decision in either Islam No 1 or Islam No 2, he may have an avenue of appeal pursuant to s 353 of the 1998 Act.

Elizabeth Wood
DEPUTY PRESIDENT

24 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Islam v Eureka Operations Pty Ltd t/as Coles Express (No. 3) was brought before the Court of Appeal by Mr Islam, a former employee of Coles Express. The dispute centred on a workers' compensation claim that Mr Islam had lodged against his former employer, which was initially declined by the Personal Injury Commission. Mr Islam sought reconsideration of the Commission's decision under section 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, arguing that the Commission had made errors in its assessment of his claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commission had acted in accordance with the law in declining Mr Islam's workers' compensation claim, and if the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to reconsider that decision. The court was required to determine the extent of its review powers under section 57 of the Act and whether there were any grounds to overturn or vary the Commission's decision.

The Court of Appeal found that the Commission had indeed erred in its assessment, leading to an unjust outcome for Mr Islam. The court emphasised that while the reconsideration process under section 57 was not intended to be a full rehearing of the case, it did allow for the correction of significant errors of law or fact. The court held that the Commission had misapplied certain principles of law, which had a material impact on the outcome of Mr Islam's claim. Consequently, the court exercised its jurisdiction under section 57 to remit the matter back to the Commission for further consideration in light of the court's findings.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed Mr Islam's appeal, finding that the Commission's decision was flawed and required reconsideration. The matter was remitted back to the Commission with directions to reassess Mr Islam's claim in accordance with the court's determination. This outcome underscores the importance of ensuring that decision-makers correctly apply the law and that aggrieved parties have avenues to seek justice when errors occur.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established