Qoreishi v B2C Delivers Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICPD 63

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Qoreishi v B2C Delivers Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 63
APPELLANT:	Sadi Qoreishi
FIRST RESPONDENT:	B2C Delivers Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Fleets Flyers Pty Ltd
INSURER:	Employers Mutual NSW Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W25549/24
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Phillips
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	5 September 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Certificate of Determination dated 13 December 2024 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – definition of worker under s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – construction of written contract and whether the appellant was an employee or an independent contractor – Construction,Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1; ZGOperations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2 considered and applied
HEARING:	18 August 2025
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr J Trainor, counsel
Walker Law Group
Respondents:
Mr D Stiles, counsel
Hicksons Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Qoreishi v B2C Delivers Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 699
MEMBER:	Mr A Halstead
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	13 December 2024

INTRODUCTION

Mr Sadi Qoreishi (the appellant) signed a document entitled ‘Independent Contractor Agreement’ (contract)[1] with B2C Delivers Pty Ltd (the first respondent) dated 30 September 2020. Under the contract, the appellant was inter alia required to supply his own vehicle and be available to perform the services, which involved the delivery of goods, usually household appliances. I set out below in greater detail the terms of the contract. Under the contract, the appellant was required to take instruction from ‘ANC’, which is a business name for Fleets Flyers Pty Ltd (the second respondent).
[1] Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), pp 110–122.
On 11 March 2022, the appellant suffered injury whilst performing his contractual duties for the respondents. The appellant claims weekly compensation and the payment of medical treatment expenses. The appellant claims that notwithstanding the contract, he was in fact a worker.
The respondents resist the appellant’s claims, asserting that he was not a worker but rather his status was that of an independent contractor.
Before the Member the threshold issue for determination was whether the appellant was in fact a ‘worker’, as defined in s 4 of the Workplace injury Management andWorkers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), at the time he was injured.
The Member found that the appellant was not a worker and accordingly entered an award in favour of the respondents. It is from this decision that the appellant appeals.
This matter was heard by me on Monday 18 August 2025.

THRESHOLD MATTERS

There is no dispute between the parties that the threshold requirements as to quantum and time pursuant to ss 352(3) and 352(4) of the 1998 Act have been met.

THE EVIDENCE

The starting point for the consideration of the evidence is the documents comprising a letter and the contract. The contract comprises the contract, a cover letter, the ANC Codes of Conduct, and the Contractor Business Application. I…

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 Qoreishi v B2C Delivers 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] NSWPICPD 63
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Qoreishi, sought a review of a decision by the workers compensation authority that denied his claim for compensation. The respondent, B2C Delivers Pty Ltd, was the employer, and the dispute centred on the interpretation of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Specifically, the issue was whether Qoreishi was a worker as defined by section 4 of the Act. This required determining if he was an employee or an independent contractor. The court was tasked with examining the written contract between the parties and applying relevant case law, particularly Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek, to ascertain Qoreishi's employment status.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of the written agreement between Qoreishi and B2C Delivers Pty Ltd, focusing on the terms and conditions that defined their relationship. It applied the multi-factor test established in the High Court cases, which considers various elements such as control, economic dependency, and the right to delegate tasks. The court scrutinised whether Qoreishi had the autonomy and business acumen typical of an independent contractor or whether he was subject to the employer's control, indicative of an employee. The evidence presented indicated that Qoreishi had significant autonomy and operated as an independent business, which led the court to conclude that he was an independent contractor rather than an employee.

Based on its analysis, the court upheld the original decision by the workers compensation authority, finding that Qoreishi did not fall within the definition of a worker under the Act. As a result, his claim for workers compensation was denied. The court's decision emphasised the importance of the specific terms of the written contract and the application of the multi-factor test in determining employment status. The judgment underscored that independent contractors, while not protected by workers compensation legislation, operate under a different set of legal obligations and protections.

Orders