Yahya v Tanks Services Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 336

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Yahya v Tanks Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 336
APPLICANT:	Hafiz Ali Hamad Yahya
RESPONDENT:	Tanks Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	John Turner
DATE OF DECISION:	11 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; injury; section 4; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1984], and Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1985] applied; Held – the applicant did not sustain injury to his lumbar spine as alleged; there is an award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant did not sustain injury to his lumbar spine as alleged. 2. There is an award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Hafiz Ali Hamad Yahya (applicant) has commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) in which he alleges that whilst in the course of his employment with Tanks Services Pty Limited (respondent) he sustained injury on 26 February 2020 (or in the alternative an acceleration, aggravation, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease) to his lumbar spine.
At the commencement of the arbitration hearing Mr Necovski confirmed on behalf of the applicant that the case which was being presented was as a frank incident on 26 February 2020 and also on that day that there was an aggravation of an underlying lumbar disease condition.
The applicant claims the costs of treatment, care and related expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act). The applicant seeks a general order for medical and treatment expenses in respect to the alleged injury to the lumbar spine. At the time of the arbitration hearing, it was confirmed that those costs and expenses solely related to treatment of the alleged injury to the lumbar spine.
There is no dispute that the applicant sustained injury on 26 February 2020 with liability having been accepted for a shoulder injury and injury to the cervical spine. The respondent does however dispute that the applicant sustained injury to his lumbar spine.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) injury (including disease injury) to the lumbar spine – s 4 of the 1987 Act;
(b) substantial contributing factor lumbar spine – s 9A of the 1987 Act, and
(c) whether claimed treatment is reasonably necessary as a result of injury – s 60 of the 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter was listed for conciliation conference/arbitration hearing before me on 18 June 2025. Mr Boris Necovski, counsel, instructed by Walker Law Group, appeared for the applicant, who was present. Mr Greg Young, counsel, instructed by Bartier Perry Lawyers, appeared for the respondent. The proceedings were conducted in-person. 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…

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.

Continue reading Yahya v Tanks Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Yahya v Tanks Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 336
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 336
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Yahya v Tanks Services Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr. Yahya, sought compensation for an injury he claimed to have sustained during the course of his employment with the respondent, Tanks Services Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the determination of whether Mr. Yahya's lumbar spine injury qualified as an injury for the purposes of the Act. This case was determined by the relevant court, which considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law to resolve the matter.

The court was required to decide whether Mr. Yahya's injury met the statutory definition of an injury under section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Additionally, the court had to assess the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented by Mr. Yahya and the respondent to determine whether the injury actually occurred during the employment period. The court also needed to consider the principles established in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates and Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1984], as well as Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1985], to ensure a proper application of the relevant law.

After considering the evidence and applicable legal principles, the court concluded that Mr. Yahya did not sustain an injury to his lumbar spine as alleged. The court found that the evidence presented by Mr. Yahya was not sufficient to establish that the injury occurred during his employment with Tanks Services Pty Ltd. As a result, the court held that the applicant was not entitled to compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Instead, an award was made in favour of the respondent.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's claim for compensation was dismissed, and an award was made in favour of the respondent, Tanks Services Pty Ltd. The court ordered that the applicant bear the costs of the proceedings. This decision underscored the importance of providing credible and sufficient evidence to support a claim for workers' compensation and the application of relevant statutory provisions and case law in determining such claims.

Orders