1. The respondent's application pursuant to s 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 for reconsideration of the Certificate of Determination dated 29 November 2024 is granted.
2. The order in paragraph 7 in the Order Certificate of Determination dated 12 February 2025 is revoked.
3. The respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation as follows:

(a) Pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987:

(i) $2,177.40 per week from 20 April 2022 to 19 July 2022.

(b) Pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987:

(i) $1,833.60 per week from 20 July 2022 to 30 September 2022;

(ii) $1,896 per week from 1 October 2022 to 30 October 2022;

(iii) $1,716 per week from 1 November 2022 to 31 March 2023;

(iv) $1,796 per week from 1 April 2023 to 29 May 2023;

(v) $1,896.50 per week from 30 May 2023 to 30 September 2023;

(vi) $1,953.50 per week from 1 October 2023 to 31 March 2024, and

(vii) $2,001 per week from 1 April 2024 to 8 September 2024.

(c) Pursuant to s 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987:

(i) $1,614 per week from 9 September 2024 to 30 September 2024, and

(ii) $1,654 per week from 1 October 2024 to date and continuing.

1. The parties agree that the applicant's indexed pre-injury average weekly earnings is $2,680 (as at 1 October 2025).
2. The balance of the Certificate of Determination dated 20 November is confirmed.

1. On 19 January 2026, the solicitor for Dimond Brothers Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd (the respondent) lodged an Application for Reconsideration of the Certificate of Determination issued by Member Strachan on 20 November 2024 on the grounds that:

(a) the Member erred when applying indexation to the agreed upon pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) of $2,292.

(b) The Member erred by failing to reduce Jonti Dimond's (the applicant) weekly benefit entitlement payable to be 80% of that PIAWE after the period of 130 weeks had expired of benefits as required by s 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

1. The respondent's solicitor attached submissions in support of the application.
2. On 11 February 2026, the parties lodged Consent Orders in which they sought to discontinue the Application for Reconsideration and to vary the Member's determination by consent.
3. I declined to approve the Consent Orders and scheduled the matter for a preliminary conference on 19 February 2026, where the respondent's application was discussed.
4. I indicated that I would issue a brief decision after considering the evidence.

1. Section 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the PIC Act) deals with the reconsideration power of the Commission. It provides:

(1) The Commission may reconsider any matter that has been dealt with by the Commission in the Workers Compensation Division and rescind, alter or amend any decision previously made or given by the Commission in that Division.

(2) If after the making of a decision by the Commission (and without limiting subsection (1)), the President is satisfied that the decision contains an obvious error, the President may -

(a) alter the decision to correct the error, or

(b) direct a registrar to alter the decision to correct the error.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), if the decision is contained in a certificate, the President may -

(a) issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected, or

(b) direct a registrar to issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected.

(4) If a decision is altered, the altered decision is taken to be the decision and notice of the alteration is to be given to the parties in the proceedings in the manner directed by the President.

(5) If a replacement certificate is issued, the certificate prevails over any previous certificate.

(6) Examples of obvious errors in a decision are where -

(a) there is an obvious clerical or typographical error in the text of the notice or statement, or

(b) there is an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, or

(c) there is a defect of form, or

(d) there is an inconsistency between the stated decision the stated reasons."

1. The criteria that is relevant to reconsideration applications were described in detail in Howell v Stringvale Pty Ltd[1] and Samuel v Sebel Furniture Limited.[2] I do not propose to summarise these as they are well known in this jurisdiction but will examine the facts to determine if the matter warrants a reconsideration based on the relevant criteria identified in these authorities.
2. It is clear that I have a wide discretion to reconsider the referral in accordance with s 57 of the PIC Act, but the discretion must be exercised fairly.[3]
3. When one has regard to the principles discussed in Howell and Samuel, it is clear that the principle that litigation should not proceed indefinitely must be balanced with the injustice that might arise if a decision is not revisited.
4. The concept of delay in this matter is relevant. The Member gave the parties liberty to apply regarding his calculation within seven days, but they failed to do so. Of course, mere mistake or inadvertence on the part of legal advisers is an insufficient ground for reconsideration. The error in the calculations should have been identified well before now.
5. Curiously, the Application for Reconsideration was lodged by the respondent, even though any change in the determination would benefit the applicant.
6. I am mindful that the applicant will suffer significant prejudice in respect of his future payments of weekly compensation, given the error regarding the calculation of the indexed PIAWE if the respondent's application is declined.
7. I am obliged to do justice between the parties according to the substantial merits of the case. It is the objective of the Commission to provide a timely, fair and cost-effective system for the resolution of disputes.
8. Section 43 (3) of the PIC Act provides that the Commission is to act according to "equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms". I have a wide discretion, but I must be fair, and justice must be done between the parties.
9. In the circumstances, and noting that the parties agree, I propose to grant the respondent's application and will make orders consistent with the orders sought in the submissions.

[2] [2006] NSWWCCPD 141 (Samuel).