Poudel v Estia Investments Pty Ltd

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Poudel v Estia Investments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 184
APPLICANT:	Basanta Poudel
RESPONDENT:	Estia Investments Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Jacqueline Snell
DATE OF DECISION:	28 April 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- The applicant was employed by two employers at the time he sustained injury in the course of his employment with the respondent and is in receipt of weekly compensation payable under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) resulting from that injury; the applicant claims his pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) should be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 item number 8 of the 1987 Act; the respondent disputes the applicant’s claim, with submission that the applicant’s PIAWE should be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 item number 2 or item number 4 of the 1987 Act; Held– the applicant’s PIAWE is to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 item number 8 of the 1987 Act.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings are to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 Item Number 8 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

At the time the applicant, Basanta Poudel (Mr Poudel), sustained injury to his low back on 29 April 2018 he was working with the respondent, Estia Investments Pty Ltd (Estia). He was working as a nursing assistant on a permanent part time basis. Liability is accepted for the injury Mr Poudel sustained in the course of his employment with Estia and he is in receipt of weekly compensation payable under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act).
At the time Mr Poudel sustained injury in the course of his employment with Estia he was also working with Anglicare. He was working as nursing assistant on permanent part time basis.
Under cover of letter dated 30 July 2018[1] Mr Poudel was notified of the decision to accept liability for his claim for workers compensation resulting from the injury he had sustained to his low back on 29 April 2018 in the course of his employment with Estia. He was also notified that for the purpose of entitlement to weekly compensation payable under the 1987 Act his pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) were calculated to be $904.63. Such calculation was based on his ordinary earnings of $629.38, overtime of $7.21 and shift allowances of $268.04 averaged over the 52 week period prior to injury. Mr Poudel was reportedly paid weekly compensation at that rate for a period of 52 weeks under s 44C of the 1987 Act (as then in force).
[1] Reply at p 1.
Reportedly, under cover of letter dated 4 March 2021 Mr Poudel was notified that after 52 weeks’ of receiving weekly compensation, his PIAWE was recalculated as $629.38. Such calculation was based on his ordinary earnings of $629.38 averaged over the 52 week period prior to injury. Mr Poudel’s entitlement to weekly compensation was reportedly then paid at that rate under s 44C(5) of the 1987 Act. Under cover of letter dated 26 April 2021 Mr Poudel was reportedly notified that following indexation his PIAWE was $641.
Following a request for review on 20 July 2021[2] as to the calculation of Mr Poudel’s PIAWE, which was grounded in the fact that at the time Mr Poudel sustained injury on 29 April 2018 in the course of his employment with Estia he was “working two jobs on a regular basis”,
[2] Application for Review (Application) at p 4.
[3] Application at p 19.
Mr Poudel was issued with notice dated 3 August 2021[3] in which he was notified that following application of Schedule 3, item number 6 of the 1987 Act, as his employment with Estia returned higher weekly ordinary earnings than his employment with Anglicare, his PIAWE as calculated was maintained.
Following a further request for review on 5 August 2021[4] as to the calculation of Mr Poudel’s PIAWE, again grounded in the fact that at the time Mr Poudel sustained injury on 29 April 2018 in the course of his employment with Estia he was employed by a second employer,
[4] Application at p 25.
[5] Application at p 45.
Mr Poudel was issued with notice dated 19 August 2021[5] in which he was again notified that following application of Schedule 3, item number 6 of the 1987 Act, as his employment with Estia returned higher weekly ordinary earnings than his employment with Anglicare, his PIAWE as calculated was maintained.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issue remains in dispute:
(a) whether Mr Poudel’s PIAWE is to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 item number 8 of the 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

Mr Poudel’s claim came before me for teleconference on 2 December 2021. Mr Beran of counsel appeared on behalf of Mr Poudel, instructed by Mr Meireles, and Ms Fung appeared on behalf of Estia. Ms Wrigley, a representative of EML was present. Mr Poudel was present. With Mr Poudel’s claim unresolved at teleconference, these proceedings were listed for conciliation/arbitration hearing.
Mr Poudel’s claim came before me again for conciliation/arbitration hearing on 3 February 2022. Mr Beran of counsel again appeared on behalf of Mr Poudel, instructed by
Mr Meireles. Mr Doak of counsel appeared on behalf of Estia, instructed by Mr Tomkins. Mr Poudel was present.
Following my discussions with counsel I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
Following consideration of submissions made on behalf of Estia, with Mr Poudel neither consenting or opposing application made by Estia to grant leave to rely on s 289A(4) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to rely on Schedule 3 item number 2 of the 1987 Act (as at the date of injury of 29 April 2018) and consideration of the principles set out in Mateus v Zodune Pty Limited t/as Temp Cleaning Services[6] I considered it was in the interest of justice to grant the leave sought by Estia and leave was granted accordingly.
[6] [2007] NSWWCCPD 227.
The parties have agreed to the determination of the matter ‘on the papers’ following receipt of written submissions, which has now occurred.

EVIDENCE

Documentary Evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents, and
(c)    Application to Admit Late Documents dated 6 December 2021 lodged on behalf of Mr Poudel and attached documents (AALD).

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Brief review of evidence

Statement of Mr Poudel

Mr Poudel relies on a statement dated 8 October 2021[7]. Mr Poudel is currently 34 years age.
[7] Application at p 1.
Mr Poudel commenced employment with Estia on 5 April 2016, working as a casual nursing aid. He was subsequently offered a permanent part time position on 12 September 2017, which initially required him to work at least 20 hours each week, with his hours increasing to work at least 30 hours each week from 23 October 2017.
A copy of Mr Poudel’s letter of appointment dated 12 September 2017[8] is in evidence before the Commission. The letter of appointment stipulated the relevant industrial agreement applicable to his employment with Estia was Estia Health NSW Enterprise Agreement 2016. The letter of appointment also stipulated that commencing 12 September 2017, Mr Poudel’s regular pattern of work was to be Monday and Tuesday between the hours of 9pm and 7.15am, and that commencing 23 October 2017 his regular patter of work was to be Monday, Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 9pm and 7.15am.
[8] Application at p 139.
Mr Poudel commenced employment with Anglicare in or about May 2017, working as a casual nursing aid. He was subsequently offered a permanent part time position on 8 February 2018, which required him to work at least 22.5 hours each week.
A copy of Mr Poudel’s contract change form effective 12 February 2018[9] is in evidence before the Commission. The contract change form noted the change of Mr Poudel’s employment from casual to permanent part time and stipulated his contract hours per fortnight at 45 hours. The contract change form also noted that it was proposed
Mr Poudel would work 22.5 hours each week.

Estia Health Enterprise Agreement 2019
[9] Application at p 165.

The Estia Health Enterprise Agreement 2019[10] (Estia Agreement) is in evidence before the Commission, as is a Decision of the FairWork Commission[11] which demonstrates approval of the Estia Agreement by the FairWork Commission on 24 March 2020 with the Estia Agreement operational from 31 March 2020 with a nominal expiry date of 30 January 2023.
[10] Application at p 56.
[11] Application at p 53.
While it appears the Estia Agreement was not operational at the time Mr Poudel sustained injury on 29 April 2018 in the course of his employment with Estia on 29 April 2018, in an email dated 6 October 2021[12] from Ian Hobba, Workers Compensation Advisor with Estia,
[12] Application at p 51.
Mr Hobba confirmed EBA No AG2016/8092 was operational at the time Mr Poudel was employed with Estia.

Anglican Community Service Enterprise Agreement 2017

The Anglican Community Services Enterprise Agreement 2017[13] (Anglican Agreement) is in evidence before the Commission, as is a Decision of the FairWork Commission[14] which demonstrates approval of the Anglican Agreement by the FairWork Commission on 28 March 2018 with the Anglican Agreement operational from 4 April 2018 with a nominal expiry dated of 30 June 2020.
[13] Application at p 166.
[14] Application at p 221.
It appears the Anglican Agreement was operational at the time Mr Poudel sustained injury on 29 April 2018 in the course of his employment with Estia on 29 April 2018.

Submissions

Mr Doak of counsel has provided written submissions in response to Mr Poudel’s assertion that relevant to the calculation of his PIAWE, the applicable item number within Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act as at the date of injury of 29 April 2018 is item number 8. Mr Beran of counsel has provided written submissions in reply. The parties have copies of counsels’ submissions. I have carefully considered counsels’ submissions and am grateful for the assistance provided to me in this matter, which is not without complexity.

Determination

Is Mr Poudel’s PIAWE to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 item number 8 of the 1987 Act?

It is not disputed Mr Poudel sustained injury on 29 April 2018 in the course of his employment with Estia and neither is it disputed Mr Poudel was employed by a second employer, Anglicare, at the time he sustained injury.
It is uncontroversial Mr Poudel was over the age of 21 at the time he sustained injury in the course of his employment with Estia, that fair work instruments relevant to both Mr Poudel’s employment with Estia and his employment with Anglicare were in force at the time he sustained injury in the course of his employment with Estia, and that as a result of the injury Mr Poudel sustained in the course of his employment with Estia he was incapacitated for his work with both Estia and Anglicare.
The question for me to determine in these proceedings is whether Mr Poudel’s PIAWE is to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 item number 8 of the 1987 Act as alleged.
Section 44C of the 1987 Act provided for definition of an injured worker’s PIAWE. Section 44C(1) of the 1987 Act relevantly defined PIAWE to mean:
“(a) the average of the worker’s ordinary earnings during the relevant period (excluding any week during which the worker did not actually work and was not on paid leave) expressed as a weekly sum, and
(b) any overtime and shift allowance payment that is permitted to be included under this section (but only for the purposes of the calculation of weekly payments payable in the first 52 weeks for which weekly payment are payable)”
Section 44H of the 1987 Act (as then in force) relevantly provided for definition of an injured worker’s ordinary hours of work when applying PIAWE:
“(a) in the case of a worker to who a fair work instruments applies are:
(i)if the ordinary hours of work in relation to a week are agreed or determined in accordance with a fair work instrument between the worker and the employer – those hours, or
(ii)in any other case, the worker’s average weekly hours (excluding any week during which the worker did not actually work and was not on paid leave) during the relevant period, or
… ”.
Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act has application to the calculation of an injured worker’s PIAWE and s 44C (4) of the 1987 Act provided:
“In relation to a worker of a class referred to in Column 2 of an item in Schedule 3, pre-injury average weekly earnings means the amount determined in accordance with Column 3 of that item, expressed as a weekly sum”
Mr Poudel asserts his PIAWE is to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 item number 8 of the 1987 Act. Schedule 3 item number 8 applies where a worker is employed by two or more employers in circumstances other than those described in the preceding provisions of Schedule 3.
Estia asserts the correct item to be applied to the calculation of Mr Poudel’s PIAWE under Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act is:
(a) Schedule 3 item number 4, which applies where a worker is employed by two or more employers for at least the ordinary hours fixed in any applicable fair work instrument.
or alternatively,
(b) Schedule 3 item number 2, which applies where a worker is employed by two or more employers and works for one of those employers for at least the ordinary hours fixed in any applicable fair work instrument.
Mr Poudel asserts none of the provisions in Schedule 3 preceding item number 8 apply to him because his ordinary hours were not fixed in any applicable fair work instrument.
Mr Poudel asserts his “prescribed number of hours” were stipulated by regulation 7 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 (the Regulation) to be 38 hours. Regulation 7 of the Regulation stipulates:
“For the purposes of the prescribed number of hours wherever referred to in Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act, 38 hours is prescribed.”
Mr Poudel asserts in circumstances where he was employed by two employers at the time he sustained injury in the course of his employment with Estia, in circumstances other than prescribed in the proceeding provisions of the Schedule 3 (being item numbers 1 – 7), calculation of his PIAWE should be in accordance with item 8:
(a)    average ordinary earnings were $1,546.45;
(b)    average hours were 62.5;
(c)    average hourly rate for both employers is $24.743232, and
(d)    PIAWE = (average hourly rate of $24.743232) x prescribed hours of 38) = $940.24
The live issue in this matter is whether Mr Poudel’s ordinary hours of work were “fixed in” one or both of the fair work instruments relevant to his employment with Estia and Anglicare at the time he sustained injury on 29 April 2018 in the course of his employment with Estia.
Estia accepts the Estia Agreement which is in evidence before the Commission was not the fair work instrument operational at the time Mr Poudel sustained injury but says the fair work instrument operational at the time Mr Poudel sustained injury is in similar terms.
Mr Doak’s submissions are made with reference to the Estia Agreement rather than the fair work instrument that was in fact operational at the time Mr Poudel sustained injury and
Mr Poudel does not quibble with this approach taken by Mr Doak.
I agree with Mr Doak’s submission that both the Estia Agreement and the Anglican Agreement canvass the issue of Mr Poudel’s ordinary hours of work. Clause 10.1 of the Estia Agreement[15] relevantly specifies that the ordinary hours of a part time employee are an average of less than 38 hours per week “arranged in accordance with clause 18” with clause 18 merely canvassing arrangement of an employee’s ordinary hours of work. Clause 10.2 of the Estia Agreement also specifies that prior to the commencement of employment, Estia and the part time employee will mutually agree in writing the guaranteed minimum number of contract hours and the rostering arrangements that apply to those contract hours. Clause 20.1(b) of the Anglican Agreement[16] relevantly specifies the ordinary hours of work of a part time employee (excluding meal times) are to be less than an average of 38 hours each week or 152 hours per 4 week period. Clause 20.3(c) of the Anglican Agreement also relevantly specifies that all hours worked by an agreeable part time employee beyond their contracted hours will be treated as ordinary hours of work.
[15] Application at p 63.
[16] Application at p 180.
While Mr Doak submits the critical question to consider with regard to the correct application of either item numbers 2, 4 or 8 of Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act is whether Mr Poudel’s ordinary hours of work are “fixed under” one or both of the fair work instruments relevant to his employment, I accept Mr Beran’s submission that the use of the words “fixed under” is incorrect and the correct wording is “fixed in”. I also accept Mr Beran’s submission that while such point of difference is subtle, it is important.
Mr Doak noted the 1987 Act provides no definition for the meaning of “fixed” for the purposes of the operation of Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act and also noted that in the absence of any definition, consideration must be given to the principles of statutory interpretation to ascertain the meaning of “fixed” in the context of Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act.
Mr Doak submitted that determination of the context and purpose of statutory provision is to be approached by considering the meaning of the words in the context of the statute and its intended purpose, other relevant material and the intention of parliament. Mr Doak helpfully referred me to CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd[17], Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority[18] and Sztal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[19].
[17] (1997)187 CLR 384 at 408 (CIC Insurance).
[18] (1998) 194 CLR 355 at 384 (Project Blue Sky).
[19] (2017) 262 CLR 362 at 368 (Sztal).
With s 32A of the 1987 Act providing definition for the meaning of “fair work instrument” with reference to the Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA), Mr Doak submitted that some assistance in determination of the meaning of “fixed” may be found with reference to the provisions of the FWA. Mr Doak referred me specifically to ss 171, 172, 52 and 53 of the FWA and submitted it was clear from these provisions that the purpose of a fair work instrument is to set out the “collective” conditions under which employees of an employer work, including their ordinary hours of work. Mr Doak submitted too it was clear from these provisions that fair work instruments are not intended to set specific ordinary hours of work for particular employees of an employer. Mr Doak submitted that by seeking to apply a meaning to the term “fixed” in the context of a fair work instrument to mean specification of the particular ordinary hours of work of a particular employee would be contrary to the context and purpose of Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act. Dr Doak submitted the use of the term “fixed” in Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act must be interpreted to mean that the ordinary hours of work of a particular employee are merely governed by the general provisions of a fair work instrument that has application to that particular employee’s employment. Mr Doak submitted the ordinary hours of work of Mr Poudel were governed by the general provisions of both the Estia Agreement and the Anglican Agreement and also pointed out that the Estia Agreement provided for written agreement between Mr Poudel and Estia as to his guaranteed minimum number of contract hours, which was evidenced in Mr Poudel’s letter of appointment dated 12 September 2017.

Mr Beran submitted that it was “telling” that Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act makes no reference to s 44H of the 1987 Act and makes no reference to an employee’s ordinary hours of work being “agreed or determined in accordance with a fair work instrument between the worker and the employer” (which is the wording of s 44H of the 1987 Act), but simply uses the words “fixed in any applicable fair work instrument”. Mr Beran submitted that as Mr Poudel was not a full time employee with Estia and Anglicare his ordinary hours of work were not “fixed in” either the Estia Agreement or the Anglican Agreement as required by Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act. Mr Beran submitted too that the written agreement between Mr Poudel and Estia, which made reference to Mr Poudel’s hours of work with Estia, made no reference to his “ordinary hours of work” as required by the Estia Agreement.
While I am grateful to Mr Doak’s referral to the matters of CIC Insurance, Project Blue Sky and Sztal, I am mindful of the matter of Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT)[20] and I am of the view that statement in CIC Insurance, Project Blue Sky and Sztal must be read in the light of Alcan. In Alcan the majority stated at [47]:
“This Court has stated on many occasions that the task of statutory construction must begin with a consideration of the text itself (Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vict) (2001) 207 CLR 72 at 77 [9] per Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ, 89 [46] per Kirby J; [2001] HCA 49; Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment (2005) 224 CLR 193 at 206 [30] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ, 240-241 [167]-[168] per Kirby J; [2005] HCA 58; Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138 at 143 [6] per Gleeson CJ; [2007] HCA 47; Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Le (2007) 232 CLR 562 at 586 [85] per Kirby and Crennan JJ; [2007] HCA 52; Northern Territory v Collins (2008) 235 CLR 619 at 642 [99] per Crennan J; [2008] HCA 49). Historical considerations and extrinsic materials cannot be relied on to displace the clear meaning of the text (Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 529 at 538 [22] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ, 555-556 [82]-[84] per Kirby J; [2006] HCA 11. See also Combet v The Commonwealth (2005) 224 CLR 494 at 567 [135] per Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ; [2005] HCA 61; Northern Territory v Collins (2008) 235 CLR 619 at 642 [99] per Crennan J). The language which has actually been employed in the text of legislation is the surest guide to legislative intention (Hilder v Dexter [1902] AC 474 at 477-478 per Earl of Halsbury LC.). The meaning of the text may require consideration of the context, which includes the general purpose and policy of a provision (Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390 at 397 per Dixon CJ; [1955] HCA 27, quoted with approval in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at 381 [69] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ) in particular the mischief (Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a at 7b [76 ER 637 at 638]) it is seeking to remedy.”
[20] (2009) 239 CLR 27 at 47 (Alcan).
It is not disputed that at the time Mr Poudel sustained injury on 29 April 2018 in the course of his employment with Estia he was also employed by Anglicare, and that as a result of his injury he was incapacitated for his work with both Estia and Anglicare. Neither is it disputed that at the time he sustained injury, fair work instruments relevant to his employment with Estia and his employment with Anglicare were in force.
The live issue in this matter is determination of whether Mr Poudel’s ordinary hours of work were “fixed in” any applicable fair work instrument as provided by Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act at the time he sustained injury in the course of his employment with Estia. I am of the view that the task of statutory interpretation “must begin with a consideration of the text itself” (Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ in Alcan) and that statement in CIC Insurance, Project Blue Sky and Sztal must be read in the light of Alcan. I accept Mr Beran’s submitted conclusion that Mr Poudel’s ordinary hours of work were not “fixed in” either the Estia Agreement or the Anglican Agreement, being the fair work instruments which were relevant to his employment with those employers at the time he sustained injury in the course of his employment with Estia.
While Mr Doak has drawn my attention to the provision of s 44H of the 1987 Act, which relevantly provides for definition of an injured worker’s ordinary hours of work when applying PIAWE, I accept Mr Beran’s submission that it is telling that Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act fails to refer to s 44H of the 1987 Act and also fails to refer to a worker’s ordinary hours of work in the same parlance as s 44 H of the 1987 Act, but rather, Schdule 3 of the 1987 Act uses the words “fixed in any applicable fair work instrument”.
Mr Doak has submitted the ordinary hours of work of Mr Poudel were merely governed by the general provisions of both the Estia Agreement and the Anglican Agreement at the time he sustained injury in the course of his employment with Estia and also pointed out that the Estia Agreement provided for written agreement between Mr Poudel and Estia as to his guaranteed minimum number of contract hours, which was evidenced in Mr Poudel’s letter of appointment dated 12 September 2017. I reject such submission. I am of the view that while there is provision in the Estia Agreement for Mr Poudel to enter into a written agreement with Estia as to a guaranteed minimum number of contract hours, his ordinary hours of work were not “fixed in” the Estia Agreement at the time he sustained injury in the course of his employment with Estia as required by Schedule 3 items numbers 2 and 4, being the item numbers relied on by Estia in disputing Mr Poudel’s claim. I am also of the view Mr Poudel’s ordinary hours of work were not “fixed in” the Anglican Agreement at the time he sustained injury in the course of his employment with Estia as required by Schedule 3 items numbers 2 and 4, being the item numbers relied on by Estia in disputing Mr Poudel’s claim.
Having regard to the authorities, the evidence as a whole and careful consideration of counsels’ submissions, I am of the view Mr Poudel’s PIAWE is to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 item number 8 of the 1987 Act as alleged, and note it is conceded by Estia that in such circumstances Estia accepts Mr Poudel’s claimed PIAWE of $940.24.

SUMMARY

At the time Mr Poudel sustained injury on 29 April 2018 he was working with Estia on a permanent part time basis. At the time Mr Poudel sustained injury he was also working with Anglicare on permanent part time basis. At the time Mr Poudel sustained injury, fair work instruments relevant to his employment with Estia and his employment with Anglicare were in force. As a result of his injury Mr Poudel is incapacitated for his work with both Estia and Anglicare and he is in receipt of benefits payable in accordance with the 1987 Act.
I have determined that Mr Poudel’s PIAWE is to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 item number 8 of the 1987 Act and it is conceded by Estia that in such circumstances Estia will accept Mr Poudel’s claimed PIAWE of $940.24.

[2022] NSWPIC 184

28 April 2022