Safarimaznabi v The Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 289

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Safarimaznabi v The Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 289
PARTIES:	Safarimaznabi, Soroush (Appellant) v The Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2025/37
PROCEEDING:	Application within existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	28 October 2025
MEMBER:	Caddie IC
HEARD AT:	On the papers
ORDER:	The application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – REFERRAL TO THE FULL BENCH – Where the Appellant in the substantive appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator seeks that the matter be referred to the Full Bench – in the alternative, the Appellant seeks the matter be referred to a judicial officer with specific qualifications – requirements for exercise of discretion to refer matters to the Full Bench – application dismissed.
LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:	Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld) s 58 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 3, 429, 447, 450, 486 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 32, Ch 13
CASES:	Allison Greenaway as the Executor of the Estate of the Late Brian Greenaway v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 142 Brisbane City Council v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy, Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland [2017] QIRC 31 Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 Re variation of Hospital and Health Service General Employees (Queensland Health) Award – State 2015 [2021] QIRC 103 Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Adams [2015] ICQ 001 Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 262 Van Der Berg v WorkCover Queensland [2021] QSC 028 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Glass (2020) 4 QR 693 WorkCover Queensland v Yang (2022) 12 QR 43

Reasons for Decision

The substantive appeal is brought by Mr Soroush Safarimaznabi ('the Appellant') against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') dated 5 February 2025 to reject his application for compensation in respect of an alleged psychological injury.
The Appellant, in an application within proceedings filed on 26 September 2025, seeks that the matter be referred to the Full Bench for hearing pursuant to s 486 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act'). In the alternative the application seeks that the matter be referred to a 'judicial officer with Supreme Court-approved qualifications and experience.'[1] The Appellant contends referral is necessary to safeguard natural justice and procedural fairness.
[1] Form 4 Application, filed 26 September 2025. It was not clear if the alternative outcome meant referring the matter to a member of the Commission who has been admitted as a solicitor in the Supreme Court, or referral of the matter to the Supreme Court.
Background
The Appellant lodged a claim for compensation for a psychiatric injury on 28 August 2024 ('the first application'). The first application resulted in a decision by WorkCover on 20 September 2024 that rejected the application on the basis the Appellant had not sustained an injury within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the WC Act'). The decision also found that the management action taken by the Appellant's employer had been reasonable…

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 Safarimaznabi v The Workers' Compensation Regulator 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] QIRC 289
Decision Date: 28 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Safarimaznabi, sought to have the matter heard by the Full Bench of the Commission pursuant to s 486 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). Alternatively, the applicant sought referral to a judicial officer with Supreme Court-approved qualifications and experience. The application was dismissed. The applicant lodged a claim for compensation for a psychiatric injury on 28 August 2024. The claim was rejected by WorkCover on 20 September 2024. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 2 December 2024 confirmed the rejection of the claim. A second application for compensation was lodged by the applicant on 11 November 2024. The claim was again rejected by WorkCover on 17 December 2024 and the decision was confirmed by a review decision handed down on 5 February 2025.

The legal issue for the court to decide was whether the matter warranted referral to the Full Bench. The court considered whether the statutory tests to be applied in the context of this appeal were any different to any other routine Workers Compensation appeal. The court also considered whether the facts underlying the appeal were novel or overly complex. The court found that no argument had been put forward by the applicant that would warrant the exercise of the court's discretion to refer the matter to the Full Bench. The court found that the statutory tests to be applied in the context of this appeal were no different to any other routine Workers Compensation appeal. The court also found that the facts underlying the appeal were not novel or overly complex. Therefore, the application for referral of the matter to the Full Bench was dismissed.

In conclusion, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the matter warranted referral to the Full Bench. The court found that the statutory tests to be applied in the context of this appeal were no different to any other routine Workers Compensation appeal. The court also found that the facts underlying the appeal were not novel or overly complex. The court found that no argument had been put forward by the applicant that would warrant the exercise of the court's discretion to refer the matter to the Full Bench. The application for referral of the matter to the Full Bench was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application for referral of the matter to the Full Bench be dismissed. The applicant reserves all rights to seek further judicial review in the Supreme Court or High Court should the Commission's handling of these issues raise questions of law or constitutional principle.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Appellant, in an application within proceedings filed on 26 September 2025, seeks that the matter be referred to the Full Bench for hearing pursuant to s 486 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act'). In the alternative the application seeks that the matter be referred to a 'judicial officer with Supreme Court-approved qualifications and experience.'[1] The Appellant contends referral is necessary to safeguard natural justice and procedural fairness. [1] Form 4 Application, filed 26 September 2025. It was not clear if the alternative outcome meant referring the matter to a member of the Commission who has been admitted as a solicitor in the Supreme Court, or referral of the matter to the Supreme Court.Background The Appellant lodged a claim for compensation for a psychiatric injury on 28 August 2024 ('the first application'). The first application resulted in a decision by WorkCover on 20 September 2024 that rejected the application on the basis the Appellant had not sustained an injury within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the WC Act'). The decision also found that the management action taken by the Appellant's employer had been reasonable management action undertaken in a reasonable way. The Appellant sought that this decision be reviewed. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 2 December 2024 confirmed that the injury was excluded from compensation because it arose substantially out of reasonable management action undertaken in a reasonable way. The Appellant did not appeal this decision to the Commission. A second application for compensation was lodged by the Appellant with WorkCover on 11 November 2024 relating to a further psychiatric injury said to be sustained by the Appellant. The decision issued by WorkCover on 17 December 2024 determined the Appellant had not sustained an injury within the meaning of the WCR Act, noting that the claim covered the same ground as that raised in the first claim that had been determined. On 23 December 2024, the Appellant requested that decision be reviewed. A review decision was handed down on 5 February 2025. It found that there was no injury sustained pursuant to section 32 of the WC Act: …I find the weight of medical evidence tends against the existence of an additional or further psychiatric injury beyond that already considered in Mr Safarimaznabi's prior claim under reference S23UK161851 and in the prior review reference 70135. In other words, I am not satisfied that the evidence supports the existence of a separate and discrete condition to that which has already been determined. I again note the events and matters considered and determined in the course of the prior review cannot be revisited or reagitated. While I acknowledge Mr Safarimaznabi sustained an injury of a psychiatric nature and that this condition has since developed or deteriorated into additional diagnosis, in the absence of any further personal injury, I am not satisfied on the balance of evidence that Mr Safarimaznabi has sustained a new 'injury' pursuant to section 32 of the Act.[2][2] Form 9 Notice of Appeal; Review decision of 5 February 2025, 12.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

If the Appellant has complaints regarding conduct of proceedings before a member of the Commission those matters should be raised through the appropriate channels. They are not relevant to my consideration of the question that the matter warrants referral to a Full Bench.Conclusion Despite the hopes of the Appellant that his Appeal can be a platform for systemic review of the constitutionality and procedural fairness of existing provisions within the WC Act, that is not the role of the Commission in hearing Workers' Compensation appeals. The Commission is not the appropriate place to resolve those concerns. That does not change whether the Commission is sitting as a member alone or as the Full Bench. That does not change no matter which Commissioner is allocated to determine the Appeal. No argument has been put forward by the Appellant that would warrant the exercise of my discretion to refer the matter to the Full Bench. The statutory tests to be applied in the context of this appeal are no different to any other routine Workers Compensation appeal. The facts underlying the appeal are not novel or overly complex. I note in reply submissions received 17 October 2025 the Appellant has removed the alternative remedy sought and added an additional paragraph as follows: 20. The Appellant reserves all rights to seek further judicial review in the Supreme Court or High Court should the Commission's handling of these issues raise questions of law or constitutional principle. Foreshadowing of future potential proceedings arising from this decision are clearly matters solely for the Appellant to determine and are not relevant to the decision in the present matter. The Application for referral of WC/2025/37 to the Full Bench pursuant to s 486 of the IR Act is dismissed. I order accordingly.OrderThe application is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.