Qoreishi v B2C Delivers Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 699

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Qoreishi v B2C Delivers Pty Ltd & Anor [2024] NSWPIC 699
APPLICANT:	Sadi Qoreishi
RESPONDENTS:	B2C Delivers Pty Ltd
Fleet Flyers Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Adam Halstead
DATE OF DECISION:	13 December 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); claim for weekly compensation payments pursuant to section 37 of the 1987 Act; claim for medical treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the 1987 Act; whether the applicant was a worker pursuant to section 4 of the 1998 Act; written contract between parties; nature of contract and required services; whether employment or contractor arrangement; ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek considered; Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd considered; Held – applicant not a worker; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant was not a worker for the purposes of s 4 of the Workplace Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 2. Award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

These proceedings are about the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties. The applicant, Mr Sadi Qoreishi, entered a contract with B2C Delivers Pty Ltd (the first respondent). The core of their agreement was that the applicant would transport and deliver goods on behalf of third parties, a home appliance delivery service for certain well-known retail shops. It was a requirement of the contract the applicant would also cooperate with, and accept direction from, the second respondent, Fleet Flyers Pty Ltd.
The applicant claims he was injured during a delivery around 11 March 2022 and that he was a worker employed by either the first respondent or second respondent at the time. He seeks the payment of weekly compensation and expenses for medical and related treatment. The first respondent and second respondent dispute the claim made by the applicant.
The applicant filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 29 August 2024 in relation to the disputed claim.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

After progressing through the usual preliminary conference and conciliation stages, the matter was before the Commission for arbitration hearing on 8 November 2024. Mr Trainor of counsel, instructed by Ms Limbaco of Walker Law Group, appeared for the applicant, who was also present. The first respondent and second respondent were represented by Mr Stiles of counsel, instructed by Ms Hudson solicitor of Hicksons Lawyers. An interpreter of the Farsi language was present at the hearing.
I am satisfied the parties to the dispute understood the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I endeavoured to bring the parties to the dispute to an agreed outcome and am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement. They were unable to reach agreement on resolution of the dispute.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Commission has been requested to determine the…

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: [2024] NSWPIC 699
Decision Date: 13 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Qoreishi v B2C Delivers Pty Ltd, the applicant sought weekly compensation payments and medical treatment expenses under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The dispute centred on whether the applicant was a worker within the meaning of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, given the written contract between the parties. The applicant argued that they were an employee of the respondent, while the respondent contended that the applicant was an independent contractor. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was a worker under the 1998 Act and, consequently, whether the applicant was entitled to compensation under the 1987 Act. The court examined the nature of the contract and the services required by the contract to determine the relationship between the parties. The court referred to previous cases, including ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek and Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd, to assist in its determination.

After considering the evidence and the relevant authorities, the court found that the applicant was not a worker within the meaning of the 1998 Act. The court held that the applicant was an independent contractor, and the nature of the contract and the services required did not establish a relationship of employment. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to compensation under the 1987 Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the award for the respondent was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders