Legal Research
Cases
Yousif v Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating

Yousif v Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating

Case [2024] NSWPIC 448 19 August 2024

Claim for Compensation for Permanent Impairment

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Yousif v Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating & Anor [2024] NSWPIC 448
APPLICANT:	Sami Matti Yousif
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (icare)
MEMBER:	Sophie Jones
DATE OF DECISION:	19 August 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); claim for compensation for permanent impairment; whether the applicant was a worker withing the meaning of section 4 of the 1998 Act or a deemed worker within the meaning of clause 2 of Schedule 1 in the 1998 Act; Held – the applicant was not a worker or deemed worker; award for the respondents.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant was not a worker pursuant to s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 2. The applicant was not a deemed worker pursuant to cl 2 of Schedule 1 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 3. Award in favour of the respondents.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 2 June 2021, Mr Sami Matti Yousif (the applicant) was undertaking painting work at a house in Avalon when he fell from a pergola to the ground, a distance estimated to be between 2.5 metres to 3.5 metres.
The applicant alleges he was employed at the relevant time by Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating (the first respondent) and sustained injury to his cervical spine, thoracic spine and lumbar spine in the course of that employment.
The first respondent did not hold a workers compensation insurance policy as at the date of the alleged injury and the applicant made a claim on the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (the second respondent) for compensation for permanent impairment pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of injuries sustained as a result of the incident on 2 June 2021.
The second respondent issued notices pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 14 November 2022 and 14 August 2023, denying liability for the applicant's claim on the basis that he was neither a worker (as defined in s 4 of the 1998 Act) nor a deemed worker (as defined in cl 2 of Schedule 1 of the 1998 Act).
By an Application to Resolve a Dispute (Application) filed in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) on 28 May 2024 the applicant claims compensation for permanent impairment pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant was a “worker” pursuant to s 4 of the 1998 Act;
(b) whether the applicant was a “deemed worker” pursuant to cl 2 of Schedule 1 of the 1998 Act, and, if so;
(c) whether the applicant sustained injury pursuant to s 4 of the 1987 Act, and
(d) the degree of…

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 Yousif v Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating

Details

AGLC: Yousif v Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating [2024] NSWPIC 448
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 448
Decision Date: 19 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Yousif v Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating, the applicant, Yousif, sought compensation for permanent impairment sustained during his employment with Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating. The dispute was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of Victoria. Yousif claimed that he was either a worker within the meaning of section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) or a deemed worker under clause 2 of Schedule 1 of the same Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether Yousif's employment status qualified him for compensation under the specified Acts. This required an examination of the definitions of 'worker' and 'deemed worker' as outlined in the legislation and an assessment of Yousif's role and relationship with Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating. The court needed to establish if Yousif's employment met the criteria set by the legislation to be considered a worker or a deemed worker.

The court concluded that Yousif did not meet the statutory definition of a worker or a deemed worker. The court's reasoning was based on the specific terms of the 1998 Act and the evidence presented regarding Yousif's employment status. The court found that Yousif's employment did not fit within the definitions provided by the Act, and therefore, he was not entitled to compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 or the 1998 Act. Consequently, the court dismissed Yousif's claim and awarded the costs to the respondents, Cameron Sandy Painting & Decorating.

Orders