Jamal v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer

The appeal concerned a claim by the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer against Mr Jamal, the sole director of a deregistered corporate employer. The dispute arose from the employer's failure to obtain a workers compensation insurance policy, a contravention of section 155(1) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW). The Nominal Insurer sought to recover payments made to an injured employee from Mr Jamal as a "culpable director" under section 145A(1) of the Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in finding that Mr Jamal actually knew of the circumstances amounting to the contravention, for the purposes of defeating his reliance on section 145A(5)(a) of the Act, and whether the primary judge erred in finding that Mr Jamal was in a position to influence the employer's conduct in relation to the contravention, so as to defeat his reliance on section 145A(5)(b) of the Act. The court also considered whether the primary judge erred in quantifying the amount recoverable from Mr Jamal.

The court applied the principles governing appellate intervention in a trial judge's findings of fact, particularly concerning credibility. The court found no error in the primary judge's findings that Mr Jamal possessed the requisite knowledge of the facts constituting the contravention and that he was in a position to influence the employer's conduct. These findings were based on the primary judge's assessment of the evidence and Mr Jamal's credibility. Consequently, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.