Legal Research
Cases
Pelekanos v Loreto Kirribilli Ltd

Pelekanos v Loreto Kirribilli Ltd

Case [2025] NSWPIC 518 29 September 2025

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Pelekanos v Loreto Kirribilli Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 518
APPLICANT:	Adrian Pelekanos
RESPONDENT:	Loreto Kirribilli Limited
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	29 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for incurred medical expenses and a re-credit of sick leave taken in respect of pericarditis resulting from COVID-19 booster vaccination; whether the applicant sustained a personal injury or disease injury in the course of employment; whether employment was a substantial contributing factor or the main contributing factor to the injury; Held – the pericarditis was sustained “in the course of employment”; Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd; injury was both an injury simpliciter and a disease injury; Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty; employment was a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury; the respondent established an expectation that its staff receive the booster; Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Limited trading as Commander Australia Pty Limited; awards in favour of the applicant.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained a personal injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent on 1 March 2022 pursuant to s 4(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The applicant’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury for the purposes of s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 3. The applicant is not barred from recovering compensation by ss 254 or 261 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The Personal Injury Commission orders 4. The respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and related treatment expenses in accordance with s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 upon production of accounts, receipts and/or Medicare Notice of Charge. 5. In accordance with s 50(3) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the applicant is to receive a re-credit of sick leave for any dates, on which he was paid wages for sick leave, in respect of which, the applicant had no current work capacity as a result of the work injury. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Adrian Pelekanos (the applicant) is employed by Loreto Kirribilli Limited (the respondent) as an IT System Administrator. On 1 March 2022, the applicant received a Moderna
COVID-19 booster vaccination, as a result of which, he developed pericarditis.
The applicant completed a Workers Injury Claim Form on 22 November 2023, claiming compensation in respect of the pericarditis on the basis that he had been required by the respondent to undergo the vaccination.
The respondent’s insurer disputed liability to pay compensation in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 2 May 2024. That decision was maintained following internal review on 24 May 2024.
In previous proceedings before the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) (W26049/24), an agreement was reached, on a voluntary basis, that…

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.

Continue reading Pelekanos v Loreto Kirribilli Ltd

Details

AGLC: Pelekanos v Loreto Kirribilli Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 518
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 518
Decision Date: 29 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pelekanos v Loreto Kirribilli Ltd involved the applicant seeking compensation for medical expenses and a re-credit of sick leave resulting from pericarditis that arose following a COVID-19 booster vaccination. The dispute centred on whether the pericarditis was sustained in the course of employment and whether the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The matter was heard in the Industrial Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the pericarditis constituted a personal injury or a disease injury within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and whether the employment was a substantial contributing factor or the main contributing factor to the injury. The court needed to determine if the applicant’s employment with Loreto Kirribilli Ltd played a significant role in the development of the pericarditis. The respondent argued that the pericarditis was not a result of the employment, as it was caused by the booster vaccination.

The court held that the pericarditis was sustained in the course of employment. It noted that the pericarditis was both an injury and a disease injury, as outlined in previous cases such as Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd and Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd. The court further found that employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, as the employer had established an expectation that its staff receive the booster, which led to the pericarditis. The court referred to Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Limited trading as Commander Australia Pty Limited in making its determination. Consequently, the court awarded compensation to the applicant for the incurred medical expenses and the re-credit of sick leave taken.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant for the incurred medical expenses and to re-credit the sick leave taken in relation to the pericarditis. The decision underscored the importance of employers' expectations and their role in contributing to employees' health conditions, particularly in the context of mandatory vaccinations.

Orders