Modderno v Proyou Business Advisory Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 490

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Modderno v Proyou Business Advisory Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 490
APPLICANT:	Susanne Modderno
RESPONDENT:	Proyou Business Advisory Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Michael Moore
DATE OF DECISION:	17 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation and payment of medical and related treatment expenses as a result of psychological injury; respondent admitted injury and incapacity denied liability relying on section 11A(1) being reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the employer with respect to discipline; Held – respondent failed to discharge its onus to establish the defence under section 11A(1); award for the applicant.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered a primary psychological injury in the nature of a DSM-5 Major Depressive Disorder arising in the course of her employment to which her employment was the main contributing factor. 2. The deemed date of injury is 25 September 2024. 3. The applicant has no current work capacity. 4. The applicant was paid weekly compensation benefits from 25 September 2024 to 19 March 2025. 5. There is an award that the respondent pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as follows: (a) from 20 March 2025 to 31 March 2025 at $2,307.68 per week, and (b) from 1 April 2025 to date and continuing at $2,317.60 per week and increased as indexed from time to time. 6. There is an award pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 that the respondent pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and related treatment expenses. 7. Either party to have leave to apply for further orders in relation to the calculation of pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) of the calculated indexed amounts. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant in this matter, Susanne Modderno, is a 66-year-old accountant who seeks weekly compensation on the basis that she has no current work capacity as a consequence of a primary psychological injury with a deemed date of injury of 25 September 2024.
The applicant, prior to her employment with the respondent, was the proprietor and sole director of an accountancy practice operating under the name “Modderno and Co Pty Ltd.”[1]
[1] Application p.1.
Ms Modderno states that her accountancy practice had over 2,000 clients which were serviced by herself, four other accountants and two additional administrative staff.
On or about 15 March 2022 the applicant essentially sold her accountancy practice to the respondent (which itself is an accountancy practice) with Modderno and Co Pty Ltd entering into a contract[2] with the respondent for the sale of the accountancy business (sale contract).
[2] Reply pp 43-62.
The business was sold on the basis of a base price of $550,000 plus a percentage share of fees in excess of a figure of $500,000 for the first-year post completion.
The price payable under the sale contract was to be…

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 Modderno v Proyou Business Advisory 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 490
Decision Date: 17 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Modderno sought compensation for psychological injury from Proyou Business Advisory Pty Ltd, which had admitted the injury but denied liability. The respondent argued that the defence under section 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 applied, claiming the injury resulted from reasonable disciplinary action. The court was tasked with determining whether the employer had discharged its onus of proving the defence.

The court analysed the employer's actions and found them unreasonable in the circumstances. It concluded that the employer had not met the onus of proving that the disciplinary action taken was reasonable, as required by section 11A(1) of the Act. The court found the employer's actions to be oppressive and not in the ordinary course of employment, leading to the rejection of the defence.

As a result, the court awarded the applicant compensation for the psychological injury, including weekly payments and reimbursement of medical expenses. The court held that the employer's failure to establish the defence under section 11A(1) meant that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the injury sustained.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the applicant was entitled to compensation, with specific details on the amount of weekly payments and reimbursement of medical expenses. The court's decision emphasised the importance of reasonable employer actions and the employer's responsibility to ensure workplace safety and mental health.

Orders