Salam v BioGiene Services Pty Ltd

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Salam v BioGiene Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 201
APPLICANT:	Abdul Salam
RESPONDENT:	BioGiene Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	John Isaksen
DATE OF DECISION:	13 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly payments for injury to both shoulders; whether worker has no current work capacity or a partial incapacity for work; whether there are any real jobs in the labour market in which the worker would be able to work; Wollongong Nursing Home P/L v Dewar, and Gradan Bathrooms P/L v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer considered; whether the worker meets the criteria for weekly benefits of compensation after the second entitlement period; Held – worker has had no current work capacity since weekly payments of compensation terminated; award of weekly payments of compensation pursuant to sections 37 and 38.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant has had no current work capacity since 9 June 2023. The Commission orders: 1. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly payments of compensation as follows: (a) $1,200 per week from 9 June 2023 to 30 September 2023 pursuant to s 37 (1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act); (b) $1,228.40 per week from 1 October 2023 to 31 March 2024 pursuant to s 37 (1) of the 1987 Act; (c) $1,250.40 per week from 1 April 2024 to 21 August 2024 pursuant to s 37 (1) of the 1987 Act; (d) $1,250.40 per week from 22 August 2024 to 30 September 2024 pursuant to s 38 (6) of the 1987 Act; (e) $1,275.20 per week from 1 October 2024 to 31 March 2025 pursuant to s 38 (6) of the 1987 Act, and (f) $1,281 per week from 1 April 2025 to date and continuing pursuant to s 38 (6) of the 1987 Act. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Abdul Salam, the applicant in these proceedings, sustained an injury to both shoulders as a result of the work he undertook as a hygiene cleaner with the respondent, BioGiene Services Pty Ltd, with a deemed date of injury of 22 February 2022.
Mr Salam ceased work as a result of his injury on 22 February 2022 and has not returned to work since then.
Mr Salam was paid weekly benefits of compensation until 8 June 2023. A dispute notice was issued by icare on behalf of the respondent on 28 February 2023 wherein a decision was made to cease the payment of weekly benefits of compensation on the grounds that
Mr Salam could work 40 hours per week in suitable employment and there were jobs which Mr Salam was suited for which provided wages in excess of Mr Salam’s earnings with the respondent by working a 40 hour week.
Mr Salam claims the payment of weekly benefits of compensation from 9 June 2023 onwards.
A Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) was issued by Medical Assessor Kuru on
1 July 2024 in respect of a lump sum claim for compensation made by Mr Salam for whole person impairment (WPI) and a further MAC following a reconsideration was issued by
Medical Assessor Kuru on 20 December 2024. Medical Assessor Kuru assessed Mr Salam as having 11% whole person impairment (WPI) for the injury to both the left shoulder and right shoulder. Medical Assessor Kuru assessed the left upper extremity (shoulder) at 8% WPI and the right upper extremity (shoulder) at 3% WPI.
A Certificate of Determination in these proceedings was issued by Member Garner on
5 March 2025 which determined that Mr Salam suffers 11% WPI.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) the extent of Mr Salam’s incapacity for work as a result of his injury (ss 33, 37 and 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act)), and
(b) whether Mr Salam is entitled to weekly payments of compensation pursuant to s 38 of the 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

This matter was listed for hearing on 30 April 2025. Mr Hanrahan appeared for Mr Salam, instructed by Mr Pena. Mr Stockley appeared on behalf of the respondent, instructed by
Ms Whiting.
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.
The parties agreed that Mr Salam’s pre-injury average weekly earnings as at 9 June 2023 was $1,500.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents;
(c)    MACs of Medical Assessor Kuru dated 1 July 2024 and 20 December 2024;
(d)    Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the applicant on
18 March 2025, and
(e)    Wages Schedule filed by the applicant on 18 March 2025.

Oral evidence

There was no application to adduce oral from Mr Salam or to cross examine Mr Salam.

The applicant’s evidence

Mr Salam has provided statements dated 31 January 2024 and 17 March 2025.
Mr Salam states that he born in Burma. He states that he did rice farming at a young age, but he left Burma at 16 years of age to live in Bangladesh. He states that he worked for about nine years as a rickshaw driver in Bangladesh. Mr Salam states that he then lived in Malaysia for about eight years and worked on construction sites as a labourer.
Mr Salam states that he arrived in Australia in about 2012. He states that he kept looking for work and found work as a hygiene cleaner with the respondent in about 2017. He states that he did cleaning work at the premises of Primo Smallgoods at Chullora.
Mr Salam states that he was required to use a heavy industrial pressure hose to wash industrial machinery. He states that the pressure hose was very strong and powerful, and his body would vibrate from the pressure when using the hose. He also states that he had to push trolleys of clean crates, lift and carry crates, and also lift and carry buckets and bottles of cleaning chemicals.
Mr Salam states that after about a year of starting this work for the respondent there was an onset and then gradual increase of pain in both shoulders. He states that by
22 February 2022 he had very bad pain in both shoulders while working and could not continue to do his job.
Mr Salam states that he was paid workers compensation payments until 8 June 2023. He has not been employed since he worked for the respondent. He states that he looks for work because he wants to work, but he has found that no one will give him a job because of his work injury. Mr Salam states that he has applied for many jobs all over Sydney, but he has not been invited for any job interview.
Mr Salam states that he does not believe he is able to work in a normal cleaning job because he cannot extend his arms repetitively or for prolonged periods of time. He states that he has applied for work in small fruit shops in Lakemba and Punchbowl where Rohingya and Bengali is spoken, but he cannot even get this type of job because of his work injury.
Mr Salam states that he believes a suitable position was found for him sometime in 2023 by the workers compensation insurer at a warehouse in Lakemba, but a person named Leila rang from the warehouse and said to Mr Salam: “No Abdul don’t come, we will call you if we need you.” He states that he informed the workers compensation insurer of this.
Mr Salam states that he does not believe he is able to work as a process worker, product assembler or pick/packer because these jobs involve the repetitive use of the arms and shoulders. He states that he is also aware that these jobs involve pulling, pushing and/or reaching, and that he would not be able to do this sort of work or keep up with this work without aggravating his work injury.
Mr Salam states that he continues to have pain, discomfort and restriction of movement in both shoulders. He states that he has difficulty lifting, pulling, pushing, and carrying.

Medical and other expert evidence

Dr Antoun has provided a Certificate of Capacity dated 27 April 2023 which certifies
Mr Salam as being fit for eight hours of work per day for five days per week with the restrictions of lifting and carrying of “15kg below chest height, not repetitive”, and pushing/pulling ability of “15kg, not repetitive”, and avoiding work above chest height.
Those restrictions are repeated in Certificates of Capacity from Dr Fountas dated
18 May 2023, 1 June 2023 and 15 June 2023.
Dr Dias, consultant occupational physician, has provided a report at the request of
Mr Salam’s lawyers dated 21 August 2023.
Dr Dias found Mr Salam to be tender to palpation over several aspects of the left glenohumeral joint and to have significantly limited range of movement of the left shoulder. Dr Dias found restriction of movement in the right shoulder, but not to the extent of the left shoulder.
Dr Dias diagnoses Mr Salam as having chronic left shoulder adhesive capsulitis with associated chronic subacromial bursitis and a SLAP tear, and chronic right shoulder pain and stiffness with chronic subacromial bursitis and a SLAP tear.
Dr Dias opines that Mr Salam is effectively precluded from returning to his pre-injury job as a hygiene cleaner, or any other job role that he is qualified to perform on the open labour market within the scope of his previous education, training and experience.
Dr Dias sets out restrictions on Mr Salam’s work capacity, which include the following:
(a)    avoid lifting weights greater than 5kg on a repetitive basis;
(b)    avoid performing any pushing or pulling duties using force greater than 5kg;
(c)    avoid performing tasks which involve overhead or above shoulder work;
(d)    avoid performing any tasks which involve repetitive tight gripping with the left hand, and
(e)    avoid using any heavy vibratory equipment or tools.
Dr Dias had the opportunity of considering a vocational assessment report from Prudence Rehabilitation dated 14 September 2022 wherein the jobs of process worker, product assembler or pick/packer are identified as being suitable for Mr Salam. Dr Dias does not regard these jobs as being suitable for Mr Salam. Dr Dias writes:
“Each of the aforementioned vocational options… involve repetitive manual handling, repetitive flexion and extension motions with the right and left hands, repetitive light gripping, intermittent heavy lifting of items weighing greater than 5 kg, and in my opinion, would therefore place Mr Salam’s right and left shoulder conditions at an unacceptable daily risk of aggravation and exacerbation if he were to re-enter the workforce and perform the core occupational duties associated with each of the aforementioned vocational options.”
There are reports in the Reply from Dr Wallace, orthopaedic surgeon, although they mainly deal with the claim for WPI. Dr Wallace does write in a short report dated
28 November 2023:
“Mr Salam has the capacity to perform the roles of process worker, product assembler or pick/packer on a full-time basis based on the history, examination and investigation findings at the time of the review on 21 November 2023.”
Dr Wallace had written in his report dated 21 November 2023 that the right shoulder had resolved and Mr Salam had 8% WPI as a result of a rotator cuff strain of the left shoulder and subsequent development of adhesive capsulitis.
The Reply also includes a Vocational Assessment report from Jaclyn Adams from Prudence Rehabilitation dated 14 September 2022.
Ms Adams records that Mr Salam has no job seeking skills, including being unable to write a resume, access internet job boards or feel confident in independently seeking work. She records that Mr Salam’s job with the respondent was secured through a friend.
Ms Adams records that Mr Salam’s literacy and numeracy skills are below average, and he can only respond in basic English. She records that Mr Salam has no computer skills, and that he only used his email address to open his payslips when he was at work.
Ms Adams considers that Mr Salam has the functional capacity to engage in the factory-based roles of process worker, product assembler, and pick packer. She writes that
Dr Antoun agreed that Mr Salam could do these jobs when she conducted the vocational assessment on 29 August 2022.
Ms Adams relies upon information from the Accident Compensation Commission of New Zealand to set out the physical and cognitive demands of those jobs. According to that website, the job of a process worker has a physical demand of up to a heavy level, requires stretching up and across on a frequent basis, has frequent lifting and carrying of materials, and many tasks involve the repetitive use of the hands and arms.
Ms Adams names three employers that were contacted for the position of process worker. All three positions involved lifting and carrying up to 10kg, and involved pushing and pulling up to 10kg. Two of the three jobs involved the ability to work in a “fast-paced environment”.
According to the Accident Compensation Commission of New Zealand, the job of a product assembler typically has a light physical demand level, requires stretching up and across on a frequent basis, has frequent lifting and carrying of materials, and there are frequent repetitive tasks which require the use of the hands and arms.
Ms Adams names three employers that were contacted for the position of product assembler. Two of those three positions involved lifting, carrying, and pushing and pulling of around 10 kg. The other job with Corestaff Sydney involved lifting and carrying up to 5kg, and pushing and pulling up to 10kg.
According to the Accident Compensation Commission of New Zealand, the job of a pick packer typically has a medium physical demand level, there are likely to be frequent daily requirements of stretching, lifting and carrying movements, and repetitive movements are likely to be required on a frequent to occasional basis.
Ms Adams names three employers that were contacted for the position of pick packer. Two of those three positions involved lifting, carrying, and pushing and pulling of around 10kg. The third position with Rarekind People involved lifting and carrying up to 8kg, and pushing and pulling up to 5kg.
There is also a Labour Market Analysis report from Prudence Rehabilitation dated
24 February 2023 in the Reply, which merely repeats the details of the three suitable jobs and potential employers already set out in the Vocational Assessment report.

A summary of the submissions from the parties

Mr Hanrahan on behalf of Mr Salam submits that his client is motivated to try and obtain employment but Mr Salam’s lack of job seeking skills, lack of literacy, numeracy and computer skills, and lack of experience outside of cleaning work means that there are no real jobs which he is suited for as a result of the injury to both his shoulders.
Mr Hanrahan submits that if there was a suitable job for Mr Salam, then his client would have that job by now.
Mr Stockley on behalf of the respondent submits that his client appreciates the difficulties which Mr Salam has had during his life, but the consideration of this dispute is not a moral one, rather it involves the application of the relevant provisions of the 1987 Act.
Mr Stockley submits that the Certificates of Capacity and opinion of Dr Dias indicate that
Mr Salam can work in suitable employment and s 32A of the 1987 specifically states that the determination of ‘suitable employment’ is to be made regardless of whether there is work or employment available for Mr Salam.

RELEVENT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

The definitions of “current work capacity” and “no current work capacity” are set out in cl 9 of Schedule 3 of the 1987 Act as follows:
“(1) An injured worker has
‘current work capacity’ if the worker has a present inability arising from the injury such that the worker is able to return to the worker's pre-injury employment, or is able to return to work in suitable employment, but the weekly amount that the worker has the capacity to earn in any such employment is less than the weekly amount that the worker had the capacity to earn in that employment immediately before the injury.
(2) An injured worker has
‘no current work capacity’ if the worker has a present inability arising from an injury such that the worker is not able to return to work, either in the worker's pre-injury employment or in suitable employment.”
Section 32A of the 1987 Act includes a definition of “suitable employment” as:
“‘suitable employment’, in relation to a worker, means employment in work for which the worker is currently suited:
(a) having regard to:
(i) the nature of the worker’s incapacity and the details provided in medical information including, but not limited to, any certificate of capacity supplied by the worker (under section 44B), and
(ii) the worker’s age, education, skills and work experience, and
(iii) any plan or document prepared as part of the return to work planning process, including an injury management plan under Chapter 3 of the 1998 Act, and
(iv) any occupational rehabilitation services that are being, or have been, provided to or for the worker, and
(v) such other matters as the Workers Compensation Guidelines may specify, and
(b) regardless of:
(i) whether the work or the employment is available, and
(ii) whether the work or the employment is of a type or nature that is generally available in the employment market, and
(iii) the nature of the worker’s pre-injury employment, and
(iv) the worker’s place of residence.”

DETERMINATION

I consider from a review of the evidence that Mr Salam has very limited, if any, current work capacity as a result of the injury sustained on 22 February 2022, having regard to the definition of ‘suitable employment’ in s 32A of the 1987 Act.
Dr Dias does not consider that Mr Salam can return to his pre-injury employment as a hygiene cleaner work, which is the only job Mr Salam has had in Australia. That would be a return to the very job which was the cause of the injury to both his shoulders.
Even the most basic of office jobs, which is often identified as being suitable for a worker who has suffered a physical injury, is not suitable for Mr Salam because of his below average literacy and numeracy skills, his basic English, and lack of computer skills.
Any possible job which Mr Salam might be suitable for must really involve manual work. However, Mr Salam does not possess any particular manual skills, such as having a forklift licence or a white card to work on a construction site, which might broaden his ability to obtain suitable employment.
It is therefore understandable that the respondent nominates manual jobs which can be performed with little or no particular skill as being suitable employment for Mr Salam, namely as a process worker, product assembler or pick packer.
However, all three nominated jobs still involve, by the descriptions set out in the report from Ms Adams from Prudence Rehab, the strenuous and repetitive use of both hands and arms.
There are Certificates of Capacity in evidence from Dr Antoun and Dr Fountas from around the middle of 2023 when the weekly payments of compensation being made to Mr Salam were terminated. Considerable weight is often given to the opinion of a general practitioner on the question of a worker’s capacity for work because the general practitioner usually has a lengthy association with the patient and will have the benefit of monitoring their patient’s condition over a period of time.
However, it is unclear from those certificates as to whether the restrictions of lifting and carrying of “15kg below chest height, not repetitive”, and pushing/pulling ability of “15kg, not repetitive” only apply to repetitive work above 15kg or no repetitive work at all. There is no report from either Dr Antoun or Dr Fountas which might assist me.

Although Dr Dias has only seen Mr Salam on one occasion, Dr Dias is suitably qualified as a consultant occupational physician to provide an opinion on Mr Salam’s work capacity. He has provided a comprehensive report and specific details as to the restrictions he places on
Mr Salam’s work capacity. I prefer his opinion on the question of Mr Salam’s capacity for work over the quite brief details set out in the Certificates of Capacity from Dr Antoun and
Dr Fountas.
Furthermore, there is no report from a similarly qualified expert which is relied upon by the respondent. The opinion on work capacity provided by Dr Wallace does not provide any explanation as to why he considers that Mr Salam can perform the work of a process worker, product assembler or pick packer.
Ms Adams relies upon information provided by Accident Compensation Commission of New Zealand that all three nominated jobs in her report involve the frequent repetitive use of the hands and arms. Dr Dias considers that all three nominated jobs place an unacceptable risk of aggravation and exacerbation of Mr Salam’s right and left shoulder conditions from repetitive manual handling and light gripping.
In Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Ltd v Dewar [2014] NSWWCCPD 55 (Dewar), DP Roche referred to the determination of suitable employment being a practical exercise having regard the definition set out in s 32A and then said at [63]:
“Thus, the task requires the identification of whether there are any ‘real jobs’ (Giankos v SPC Ardmona Operations Ltd [2011] VSCA 121 at [102]) which, having regard to the matters in sub-s (a) of the definition, the worker is able to do, regardless of whether those jobs are ‘available’ (to the worker) or are ‘of a type or nature that is generally available in the employment market’.”
In Gradan Bathrooms Pty Ltd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer [2020] NSWWCCPD 36 (Gradan Bathrooms), DP Snell referred to Dewar (at [63]) and then said at [87]:
“The short point is that whether a worker has an ability to return to work in suitable employment depends on whether there are real jobs in the labour market in which the injured worker would be able to work. If there are not, then an injured worker will not have current work capacity.”
I cannot be satisfied that there are real jobs of a process worker, product assembler or pick packer in the labour market which Mr Salam would be able to do because all of those jobs require the constant and repetitive use of the upper limbs and Dr Dias considers that such use of the upper limbs would place Mr Salam at further risk of injury.
Nor are there are any other real jobs which I can identify from the available evidence which Mr Salam is suitable for having particular regard to his education, skills and work experience.
I appreciate that Mr Salam is right handed and he has only been assessed as having 3% WPI of the right shoulder. However, all the three nominated jobs involve the repetitive use of both hands and arms. There is no job identified by Ms Adams as requiring only the use of the right hand and arm.
Mr Stockley in his submissions singled out the job of product assembler with Corestaff Sydney in the report from Ms Adams as being particularly suitable for Mr Salam because that job only requires lifting of up to 5kg, which is consistent with the restriction set out by Dr Dias.
However, that particular job still requires pushing and pulling of up to 10kg, and although not specifically stated in the details of the job, Ms Adams includes frequent repetitive tasks which requires the use of the hands and arms as being one of the demands of a product assembler. That particular job also appears to require data entry skills which Mr Salam does not possess.
I therefore do not consider that the job of a product assembler with Corestaff Syndey is a real job which is suitable for Mr Salam.
I am also required to have regard to any plan or document prepared as part of a return to work process and any occupational rehabilitation services which have been provided to
Mr Salam to determine if he is able to return to work in suitable employment.
Section 45 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) imposes a mandatory obligation on the respondent to establish an injury management plan. Section 52 of the 1998 Act imposes a mandatory obligation on the respondent to establish a return to work program. The return to work program referred to in s 52 must have “policies and procedures for the rehabilitation (and, if necessary, vocational re-education) of any injured workers of the employer.”
I could not locate, nor was I directed to, any material before the Commission in regard to an injury management plan, return to work program, or any occupational rehabilitation service being provided to Mr Salam.
Ms Adams writes that no vocational testing was completed at the time she undertook her assessment of Mr Salam in August 2022 because he reported that he wished to upgrade his capacity and return to work as a cleaner with the respondent. That assessment was well over two years ago and yet there is no evidence of the respondent taking any steps to assist
Mr Salam with any occupational rehabilitation since that assessment.
This is not a situation where a worker is continuously providing certificates which certify total unfitness for work, which might be an impediment to an employer arranging for vocational assistance to be provided to the worker. Nor is it a situation where liability for an injury has been denied, and an employer is not prepared to meet the cost of vocational assistance. There would therefore seem to be no reason why the respondent has not met the obligations set out in Chapter 3 of the 1998 Act.
In my view, even a limited amount of rehabilitation may be beneficial for Mr Salam. It can increase his chances of trying to obtain some employment on the open labour market.
The lack of any evidence of an injury management plan, return to work program or occupational rehabilitation service reinforces the conclusion which I have reached that
Mr Salam has no current work capacity.
Mr Stockley refers to Mr Salam’s own belief that he could work in a fruit shop where Rohingyan and Bengali is spoken as confirmation that Mr Salam has some work capacity. That appears to be more a source of hope for Mr Salam rather than a reality. I cannot make a finding that Mr Salam has some work capacity based upon this statement without having further information as to what specific work he would be able to do in a small fruit shop which amounts to a real job.
I have therefore come to the conclusion that Mr Salam has had no current work capacity since 9 June 2023 having regard to his education, skills and experience, the failure by the respondent to provide any occupational relocation services that might assist Mr Salam in re-entering the workforce, and the lack of any real jobs which can be identified as jobs which
Mr Salam can undertake.
The second entitlement period (s 37 of the 1987 Act) runs, on my calculation, until
21 August 2024. Mr Stockley did query whether Mr Salam would be entitled to weekly benefits of compensation thereafter having regard to the provisions of s 38 (2):
“A worker who is assessed by the insurer as having no current work capacity and likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work capacity is entitled to compensation after the second entitlement period.”
Mr Stockley concedes that this is a “faint” submission, but he points out that there is no medical evidence which addresses the question of whether the lack of any work capacity will continue indefinitely. Furthermore, both Dr Dias and Dr Wallace diagnoses Mr Salam as having left shoulder adhesive capsulitis which will often improve or resolve entirely over time.
I have previously taken the view in Morcos v Deosa Enterprises Pty Ltd [2021] NSWWCC 44 that ‘likely to continue indefinitely’ requires a worker to establish that he or she is likely to continue to have no current work capacity for an unknown or indeterminate period into the future (at [25]).
A similar view was taken by Arbitrator Harris in Roberts v University of Sydney [2020] NSWWCC 25 at [99-100]:
“I agree with the applicant’s submission that the meaning of “indefinitely” is akin to an unknown or non-specific period.
I also agree with part of the respondent’s submission that the meaning relates to the ‘foreseeable future’, although the meaning is probably more restrictive than that because the satisfaction of the concept requires incapacity of an indefinite nature rather than just in the forseeable period.”
From my review of the evidence, Mr Salam is likely to have no current work capacity for an unknown or indeterminate period into the future. It might be that notwithstanding the assessment of permanent impairment of the left shoulder, there will be some improvement in the adhesive capsulitis condition. It might be that an occupational rehabilitation service provided to Mr Salam will allow him to return to the workforce or at least allow him to be eligible for some real jobs that he might be suited to. However, there is no indication of this at the present time and therefore Mr Salam satisfies the provisions of s 38 (2) of the 1987 Act, which entitles him to weekly payments of compensation after the second entitlement period.
The lawyers acting for Mr Salam have prepared a wages schedule which includes indexation of pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) as provided for by s 82A of the 1987 Act, although that is only up until the commencement of the s 38 period on 22 August 2024. The respondent has not challenged the calculations made in the wages schedule.
There will therefore be an award of weekly payments of compensation in favour of Mr Salam as follows:
(a) $1,200 per week from 9 June 2023 to 30 September 2023 pursuant to s 37 (1) of the 1987 Act;
(b) $1,228.40 per week from 1 October 2023 to 31 March 2024 pursuant to s 37 (1) of the 1987 Act;
(c) $1,250.40 per week from 1 April 2024 to 21 August 2024 pursuant to s 37 (1) of the 1987 Act;
(d) $1,250.40 per week from 22 August 2024 to 30 September 2024 pursuant to s 38 (6) of the 1987 Act;
(e) $1,275.20 per week from 1 October 2024 to 31 March 2025 pursuant to s 38 (6) of the 1987 Act, and
(f) $1,281 per week from 1 April 2025 to date and continuing pursuant to s 38 (6) of the 1987 Act.

[2025] NSWPIC 201

13 May 2025