Jomaa v Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 122

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Jomaa v Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 122
APPLICANT:	Chadi Jomaa
RESPONDENT:	Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited
MEMBER:	Mitchell Strachan
DATE OF DECISION:	2 April 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; injury; competing factual chronology; Held – applicant did not sustain injuries in the course of his employment with the respondent; injury did not occur; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission finds: 1. The applicant did not fall from the stairs leading down from the access walkway over the PUR line on 15 March 2019. The Commission determines: 2. The applicant did not sustain injuries to left foot, left knee, right shoulder, back, eye, left ankle and right elbow in the course of his employment with the respondent on 15 March 2019. 3. Award for the respondent on the claim for permanent impairment compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

This matter concerns an assertion by Mr Chadi Jomaa (the applicant) that on 15 March 2019 he fell from stairs leading down from an elevated access way over a piece of factory machinery known as the “PUR line” and in doing so sustained significant injuries for which he now brings a claim for lump sum compensation. For the reasons set out below, I am not satisfied that the applicant fell from the stairs as alleged and as such, his claim for lump sum compensation cannot succeed.
The applicant was employed by Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited (the respondent) as a factory operator or “line worker” and his duties including maintaining and observing the product line known as the PUR line.
The applicant alleges that on 15 March 2019 he sustained injuries to his left foot, left knee, right shoulder, back, eye, left ankle and right elbow when he fell downstairs on one side of an elevated platform that allowed workers to traverse from one side of the PUR line to the other.
The respondent disputes that the injury occurred at all and asserts that he alleged injury was fabricated by the applicant, motivated by the potential financial gain. Having found for the reasons that I have that the injury did not occur at all, I have made no findings with respect to the applicant’s motivations in bringing these proceedings.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the alleged injury arose out of on the course of the Applicant’s employment as required by s 4(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
(1987 Act), involving a determination of whether:
(i)by virtue of the applicant’s conduct, he removed himself from the course of his employment so that any injury sustained is not compensable and/or
(ii)the injurious event relied on, being a fall from the PUR line stairs, actually occurred.
(b) whether the applicant’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the alleged…

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 Jomaa v Borg Manufacturing 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 122
Decision Date: 2 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jomaa v Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers' compensation by the applicant, Mr Jomaa, against Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether Mr Jomaa had sustained injuries in the course of his employment, which would entitle him to compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The case was heard in the relevant court which had to determine whether the injuries claimed by Mr Jomaa occurred in the course of his employment and if Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd was liable for compensation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Jomaa's injuries occurred in the course of his employment with Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd. This involved a detailed examination of the factual chronology of events presented by both parties and determining the veracity of each account. The court had to assess the credibility of the evidence provided by Mr Jomaa and the respondent to ascertain the true circumstances of the injury.

The court carefully considered the evidence and concluded that Mr Jomaa did not sustain the injuries in the course of his employment. The court found that the chronology of events presented by the applicant did not align with the actual events, as evidenced by the respondent's account and supporting documentation. As a result, the court determined that the injury did not occur in the course of employment, and the claim for compensation was dismissed in favour of Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd. The court made an award for the respondent, affirming that no liability for compensation existed.

The final orders of the court dismissed Mr Jomaa's claim for workers' compensation and awarded costs to Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd. The court's decision was based on its finding that the injuries claimed by Mr Jomaa did not occur in the course of his employment, and thus, he was not entitled to compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders