Issued under s 7.13(4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

The reviewable decision is about the amount of statutory benefits payable under Division 3.3 (weekly payments of statutory benefits to injured persons) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act) and is therefore a merit review matter under Schedule 2(1)(a) of the MAI Act.

(a) the reviewable decision is affirmed, and

(b) the matter is referred back to the Personal Injury Commission for determination of the claimant's claim for costs pursuant to s 8.10(4) of the MAI Act.

1. There is a dispute between Ali Cheldawi Ghafili (the claimant) and the insurer about whether the claimant is an earner for the purpose of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act).
2. The claimant was involved in a motor accident on 10 April 2025.
3. The claimant lodged an application for personal injury benefits on 26 May 2025.
4. On 14 August 2025 the insurer determined the claimant was not an earner for the purpose of the MAI Act.
5. On 10 September 2025 the claimant requested an internal review of the insurer's earner decision dated 14 August 2025.
6. On 22 September 2025 the insurer issued their internal review decision in which the insurer affirmed their 14 August 2025 decision that the claimant was not an earner (the reviewable decision).
7. The claimant seeks a merit review of the reviewable decision (the Application).

1. The claimant submits he meets the definition of "earner" under Sch 1, cl 2(a)(i) of the MAI Act on the basis he was working as a retail assistant during the eight week period preceding the accident.
2. The claimant relies on the following as evidence in support of this contention:

(a) payslips for a pay period commencing 24 February 2025 and ending

13 April 2025;

(b) 2025 tax return, notice of assessment and income summaries;

(c) undated, handwritten letter from his alleged employer;

(d) employer's statement dated 16 October 2025;

(e) claimant's statement dated 17 October 2025;

(f) screenshots of "selfies" of the claimant and the claimant with his employer said to have been taken in the workplace on 14 March 2025;

(g) screenshot of WhatsApp messages said to be between the claimant and

Mr Ali Alkhazal (the third party said to have introduced the claimant to the employer) dated 19 and 20 May 2025;

(h) application for superannuation fund membership dated 8 September 2025, and

(i) supplementary statement of the claimant dated 17 February 2026.

(a) he was employed on a full-time basis during a period of around seven weeks preceding the accident;

(b) payslips evidence this employment;

(c) bank statements do not correlate with earnings because he was mostly paid in cash;

(d) employment is also evidenced by tax contributions paid by the employer on a pay as you go basis;

(e) the "selfies" of the claimant at work and with his employer taken during the period of employment is evidence of the employee/employer relationship, and

(f) screenshots of WhatsApp messages between the claimant and a third party evidence exchange of bank details for payment of earnings owed post-accident.

(a) there are errors in the payslips and inconsistencies arise from the payslips and other information;

(b) there are inconsistencies in various statements made by the claimant about his employment circumstances;

(c) the claimant's tax return was prepared after the accident and is evidence only of earnings declared to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) by the claimant and not proof of actual earnings received;

(d) payslips were not provided to the claimant until after the accident and there is no objective contemporaneous evidence to verify the contended employment;

(e) the contended employment is the first instance of employment since the claimant arrived in Australia in 2009;

(f) the claimant remained on full pension/carer allowances/benefits throughout the entire period of employment, and

(g) sudden employment shortly before the accident is inconsistent with a history of no employment for the previous 16 years and instead, receipt of a carer's pension/allowances from Centrelink.

1. The insurer submits having regard to the above the contended employment is not plausible and further and/or in the alternative, the evidence puts the claimant's credit in issue. The insurer submits the evidence does not establish on balance that the claimant was employed before the accident. The insurer submit the claimant has therefore not discharged his onus of proof.

1. On 20 October 2025 the claimant lodged submissions and documents in support of the Application.
2. On 10 November 2025 the insurer lodged their Reply and documents in support.
3. A preliminary conference was held with the parties on 25 November 2025.
4. On 25 November 2025, following the preliminary conference, interim directions were issued which required, inter alia, the claimant to provide:

(a) a copy of this Statement of Income for the financial year ending

30 June 2025 downloaded from his MyGov account;

(b) a copy of his 2025 notice of assessment from the ATO;

(c) a copy of all individual tax returns, including any amended versions lodged with the ATO for the financial year ending 30 June 2025;

(d) copies of all emails from Mr Alnajim enclosing payslips, and

(e) copies of any written communication between the claimant and his employer (e.g. emails, messages, etc) prior to and during the alleged period of employment that concern or relate in any way to the claimant's employment or proposed employment with Sky Supermarket (for example concerning any application for employment, job offer, employment contract, start date, training or induction, wage payments, hours worked or notice of hours/days allocated to work, rosters, roster or shift changes, notice of shifts/hours allocated etc).

1. On 7 January 2026 the claimant produced various 2025 tax documents in answer to the interim directions. The undated, handwritten letter and statement of

16 October 2025 from the employer and payslips were also re-produced in response to the interim directions (these documents were included in the claimant's document bundle 1). 2. No documents were produced by the claimant in answer to 16(e) above. 3. The insurer requested an assessment conference. The claimant did not object. 4. The assessment conference took place on 4 February 2026 and was attended by the claimant (with his wife as support person), the claimant's solicitor and counsel and two insurer representatives. The claimant gave oral evidence through an interpreter and the alleged employer, Mr Nasir Alnajim, gave oral evidence by video link. 5. On 4 February 2026, following the assessment conference, further interim directions were issued, which provided the claimant with an opportunity to provide any further documents in support of the Application. 6. In response to the further interim directions:

(a) on 10 February 2026 the claimant provided further submissions, the selfie images, WhatsApp messages and the superannuation member application record;

(b) on 17 February 2026 the claimant provided a supplementary statement dated 17 February 2026 and a copy of the letter to the insurer serving same, and

(c) on 18 February 2026 the insurer lodged further submissions in reply, an email to the claimant's solicitors dated 17 February 2026 and an email from the claimant's solicitors to the insurer dated 17 February 2026.

1. Most of the WhatsApp messages in the screenshots provided by the claimant are in Arabic. On 23 February 2026 the parties were notified of an English translation and given an opportunity to provide alternative independent translation if they disagreed with the translation notified to the parties.
2. Neither party challenged the translation provided on 23 February 2026. In accordance with the 23 February 2026 notification the translation provided in that notification (set out further below) is therefore adopted for the purpose of this merit review.

1. The meaning of "earner" for the purpose of the MAI Act is set out in Schedule 1, cl 2 of the MAI Act, as follows:

"A person who is injured as a result of a motor accident is an "earner" if the person is at least 15 years of age and who--

(a) was employed or self-employed (whether or not full-time)--

(i) at any time during the 8 weeks immediately preceding the motor accident, or

(ii) during a period or periods equal to at least 13 weeks during the year immediately preceding the motor accident, or

(iii) during a period or periods equal to at least 26 weeks during the 2 years immediately preceding the motor accident,

and, at the date of the motor accident, had not retired permanently from all employment, or

(b) before the motor accident, had entered into an arrangement (whether or not an enforceable contract)--

(i) with an employer or other person to undertake employment, or

(ii) to commence business as a self-employed person, at a particular time and place, or

(c) was, immediately before the motor accident, receiving a weekly payment or other payment in respect of loss of earnings under this Act or the Workers Compensation Act 1987."

1. The claimant contends he is an earner pursuant to cl 2(a)(i).

1. In his written statement dated 17 October 2025 the claimant states:

(a) he resides in Old Guildford;

(b) he was working as a "retail assistant" prior to the accident;

(c) this was the first job he had obtained since arriving in Australian in 2009, as he had been in receipt of Centrelink benefits (carer's allowance/pension) from around the time he arrived in Australia until the accident;

(d) he continues to receive Centrelink benefits;

(e) he has had to care for his wife since arriving in Australia as she has back issues and severe mental health issues;

(f) he first commenced working for Mr Alnajim at Sky Supermarket on

22 February 2025;

(g) his role was "general in its nature, it required [him] to do various tasks such as stock takes, shelf management, stock management, cash register operating, and various other manual labour roles";

(h) when he commenced with Sky, he was advised by Mr Alnajim "that he intended on keeping [the claimant] as a sales assistant for only a short period of time until [he] learnt the full operation of the business, to which [he] would then be transitioned into a managerial role instead";

(i) he was paid cash in hand as it was his "preferred payment method" because he was "not very good with using technology so that is why [he] preferred cash payments";

(j) his employer has been unable to pay "superannuation to date as [he has] not made the necessary arrangements to open an account";

(k) his employer has "set aside the funds for superannuation and has advised me that he will make a direct deposit once [he] elect[s] which fund [he] would choose to go with";

(l) he commenced working at a rate of $32.13 per hour gross, and

(m) on average he worked around 60 hours per week.

1. Mr Alnajim is the sole director and owner of Sky Supermarket and provided an undated handwritten letter. This letter was provided to the insurer on 10 September 2025 as part of the claimant's request for an internal review and was likely obtained between

12 June 2025 and 10 September 2025.[1] In this letter Mr Alnajim states:

(a) the claimant commenced working for him on 22 February 2025;

(b) the claimant's last day of work was 10 April 2025 when the claimant informed him he could no longer work for him due to a car accident;

(c) during the initial weeks "weekly wages" were paid by cash with the last two payments by bank transfer, and

(d) "the details are recorded in the payslips".

1. On 16 October 2025 Mr Alnajim provided a further, typed statement which aligns with the claimant's statement dated the following day (17 October 2025), including that

(a) the claimant's employment commenced 22 February 2025;

(b) the claimant was to commence on a low salary as a retail assistant whilst he learnt the role of becoming a store manager and had been promised a promotion together with a significant increase in his remuneration;

(c) the claimant requested payment came in the form of cash, and

(d) he has "held [superannuation] money for the claimant as [the] claimant is yet to nominate a superannuation account".

1. Mr Alnajim also participated in a recorded interview conducted by the insurer's investigator on 1 October 2025 (that is, prior to provision of his written statement dated 16 October 2025 to the claimant's solicitor). During this interview Mr Alnajim stated:

(a) he is the sole director and owner of Sky, convenience and groceries store;

(b) Sky Supermarket is a "convenience store and groceries" (Mr Alnajim did not accept it predominantly sells tobacco products, repeating that it was a convenience store when this was put to him);

(c) there was currently one employee (other than himself), being the person (referred to as the "worker") who could be seen working in the store during the interview, which took place opposite the store;

(d) the employee that could be seen working in the store during the interview is the replacement for the claimant;

(e) the claimant commenced working for him on the date in the payslip;

(f) the claimant's role involved being a "worker" and doing what the current worker could be observed doing in the store during the interview;

(g) store opening hours were 6.00am to 11.00pm (although he also indicated sometimes the store would stay open until 1am);

(h) he was introduced to the claimant by a friend;

(i) wages were paid to the claimant by the method recorded in the payslips and "you can ask [the claimant] how I pay him";

(j) payslips were provided to the claimant by emails, and

(k) he did not know if the claimant resigned and the investigator should "ask [the claimant] that question".

1. The claimant completed an application for personal injury benefits (APIB) on

26 May 2025 in which he declared his pre-injury income was $1,550.75 per week. The claimant identified his employer as "Sky Supermarket Pty Ltd".

1. The claimant provided seven payslips to the insurer on 26 May 2025 for the pay period 24 February 2025 to 14 April 2025 summarised as follows:

1. The payslips record the claimant's "base pay rate" is $25 per hour, that no superannuation fund details were supplied by the claimant and that the claimant was entitled to, and accrued annual leave and long service leave. Upon cessation of employment the claimant had accrued 28.46 hours of unpaid annual leave.

1. An initial needs assessment report dated 24 June 2025 records that the claimant underwent an initial needs assessment on 17 June 2025 during which he was assisted by an Arabic interpreter. The report records the claimant informed the assessor:

(a) he was currently living with his son temporarily for one month but normally lives in another residence with a flatmate (random person);

(b) he worked as a "storeman for Sky Supermarket in Auburn" and "was responsible for most of the daily operation in the store, from administrative, packing, cleaning and customer services";

(c) he had "a manager that delegated work for him and the job is self-pacing and fast paced, as he has so many different roles in the business";

(d) his work duties were administrative, packing, cleaning and cashier;

(e) he typically worked 45 hours per week;

(f) he normally worked Monday to Friday but "if needed will work weekends", and

(g) his hours of work were typically from "6am- 3pm, however will vary depending on the demand from the employer."

1. On 22 July 2025 the claimant telephoned the insurer. The claimant was assisted by an Arabic interpreter during this call. The insurer's file note records the claimant stated:

(a) "I only worked for 2.5 months with this employer...", and

(b) "I have no income how can I pay rent etc - I am separated from wife and no longer get centrelink carers benefit" [sic].

1. On 8 August 2025 the insurer telephoned Mr Alnajim. The insurer's file note records that during this call the insurer asked Mr Alnajim whether he paid the claimant by cash in hand or via bank transfer. Mr Alnajim replied "via bank account - you can confirm that with Mr Ghafili".

1. On 18 July 2025 the claimant provided by email to the insurer a 2025 electronic lodgement declaration and individual tax return, representing that this was his tax return, which he had lodged with the ATO (Version One). This first version:

(a) does not include income received from the insurer by way of payment of weekly benefits made by the insurer before payments ceased;

(b) declares the claimant's postal and home address is an address in South Australia, and

(c) is dated 18 July 2025 and reportedly prepared by tax agent Atif Rahim from Austvision Taxation Services Pty Ltd (an incomplete activity statement for Sky Supermarket at page 37 of the insurer's first document bundle shows this is the tax agent for Sky Supermarket).

1. On 7 January 2026 the claimant provided a second version of what is said to be his 2025 tax return in answer to the interim directions dated 25 November 2025 (Version Two). Version Two declares a postal and home address in Merrylands, includes income received from the insurer and is prepared by a different tax agent.

1. On 18 July 2025 the claimant emailed a transaction summary for National Australia Bank (NAB) with account number ending 7962 (NAB account) for the period

19 May 2025 to 7 August 2025 created on 8 August 2025. The document does not identify the name of the account holder, but the insurer accepts the claimant is the account holder. The document is not a bank statement but instead, is a transaction summary appeared to have been created by the claimant from his online account with filters used to search only certain kinds of transactions so that not all transactions in the stated period are listed.[2] 2. In an email to the insurer dated 8 August 2025 the claimant stated this bank account only came into existence when he opened it after the accident, in April 2025. The claimant further stated in this email that he only held two accounts being the NAB account ending 7962 and a Commonwealth Bank account ending 4883. 3. The claimant relies on the following deposits in the NAB account as payment of the last two weeks of wages for his employment with Sky Supermarket:

(a) 29 May 2025: $1,200 described as "NASSIR SAAD HAMAD ALWAGESWAGES WEEK 6", and

(b) 12 June 2025: $850.25 described as "NASSIR SAAD HAMAD ALWAGES".

1. The NAB transaction summary also records an ATM withdrawal of $1,200 being the amount of the first deposit above as follows:

1. Based on the transaction description it appears the claimant made an ATM withdrawal in Rockdale from a NAB owned ATM at 11.09 pm on 29 May 2025 that is the same day as the deposit in the same amount said to represent payment of wages. Whilst the transaction date in the summary is 30 May 2025 a review of other ATM and EFTPOS transactions in the summary indicates the actual withdrawal date is 29 May 2025 recorded as "29TH" in the description.[3]
2. A NAB branch is located in Rockdale across the road from Sky Supermarket.[4]
3. The NAB transaction summary shows another transaction in Rockdale on 17 July 2025 as follows:

"EFTPOS 17/07 20:30CHARCOAL KINGDOM ROCKDALE $44.73"

1. The claimant had provided a previous version of the NAB transaction summary for account ending 7962 for the period 19 June 2025 to 18 July 2025 in which "Rockdale" is redacted from the same 17 July 2025 transaction as follows:

1. This reinforces the likelihood the NAB transaction summaries are a redacted version of bank statements in that they restrict disclosure in some way through search filters and possibly, additional redaction given only the location is redacted from the above entry in the earlier version of the NAB transaction summary. Accordingly, there may be other relevant information in the NAB bank statements that has not been disclosed by the claimant. NAB statements (that is, bank issued official statements as distinct from a search generated transaction summary created by the claimant from his online account) have not been provided for any period.
2. The Rockdale transaction on 17 July 2025 occurs the night before the claimant sends an email to the insurer on 18 July 2025 stating:

"I am writing to confirm that the business owner?s name is Mr. Nasar, and the name of the store is SKY SUPERMARKET.

1. On the 18 July 2025 the claimant also sends an email to the insurer attaching Version One of his tax return, being the version containing Sky Supermarket's accountant's details and an unexplained South Australian address for the claimant.
2. The claimant has also provided bank statements for Commonwealth Bank account ending 4883 in joint names, one of which is the claimant, for the period 1 March 2024 to 31 May 2025.
3. There are frequent daily transactions shown in the Commonwealth Bank statements for groceries, petrol, meals, beverages, take away food and other such daily incidentals, however, none of the transactions place the claimant in the Rockdale area before or during the alleged period of employment from 22 February 2025 to 10 April 2025. The bank statements show EFTPOS transactions during the alleged period of employment in suburbs generally within about a 15 minute radius of the Merrylands/Old Guildford area (it is unclear whether the claimant lives at Merrylands or Old Guildford as the evidence is conflicting in this regard).

1. The claimant says the selfies were taken inside Sky Supermarket at 7.00pm on

15 March 2025, during his period of employment. The selfies are produced as screenshots and the claimant states he did not alter the metadata in these images, which were retrieved from his phone. 2. The insurer submits that as the metadata is capable of being amended, they intended on qualifying an expert to provide opinion on the validity of the metadata shown on the screenshots of the selfies. On 17 February 2026 the insurer requested provision of the claimant's phone for this purpose. 3. Evidence given at the assessment conference indicates the mobile phone in question is an old phone no longer used by the claimant and provision of same to the insurer's expert for a 24 hour period ought not inconvenience the claimant. 4. The claimant has declined to provide the subject mobile phone to the insurer's expert and instead, relies on his supplementary statement dated 17 February 2026 as evidence the metadata is unaltered. 5. The claimant submits the WhatsApp messages are between him and his friend, Mr Ali Alkhazal, who the claimant says introduced him to Mr Alnajim and evidences the exchange of bank details in order for Mr Alnajim to remunerate the claimant for amounts owed to him post-accident for work carried out before the accident. The claimant says account details were sent to Mr Alkhazal as he had agreed to provide these details to Mr Alnajim on behalf of the claimant. 6. The screenshot of the WhatsApp messages provided by the claimant is shown below:[5]

Adopting the translation pursuant to paragraphs 23 and 24 above the sequence of messages from 18 to 20 May 2025 read as follows:

ALI CHELDAWI GHAFILI_Payslips_2025... [7 page PDF attached]

1. The screenshot indicates this is a conversation with "Abo Alhasean" rather than with Ali Alkhazal, as contended. The bank account details given in the message do not match the bank account details for the disclosed accounts being NAB account ending 7962 and Commonwealth Bank account ending 4883, being the only two accounts the claimant asserted he held. The BSB in the WhatsApp messages matches the BSB for the disclosed NAB account but the account number does not match. The account number given in the WhatsApp message ends 3064 whereas the disclosed bank account ends 7962. Account ending 3064 is not the account into which wages were allegedly paid.

1. The claimant gave oral evidence at the assessment conference on 4 February 2026 through an interpreter and stated:

(a) Sky Supermarket is in Rockdale and is not close to his home. Travel by car from home to Rockdale takes 50 minutes to one hour;

(b) as a result of injuries sustained in the subject accident it is "impossible" for him to drive for 50 minutes and he would also "suffer from 50 minutes [in a car] as a passenger";

(c) his wages were paid in cash because "[Mr Alnajim] would give [him] cash" and "did not stop giving [him] cash";

(d) he wasn't thinking whether cash was better or not for him but it was for his "means" that he "needed the cash";

(e) after the accident he "did not return back to work";

(f) he was owed wages after the accident but "because of the long distance" Mr Alnajim "put the money in my account";

(g) he gave Mr Alnajim his bank account details verbally (although he subsequently said he did not remember);

(h) he told a friend he was looking for work and this friend introduced him to

Mr Alnajim;

(i) this introduction was about a week or two weeks before commencing work for Mr Alnajim;

(j) the friend's name is Ali Alkhazal;

(k) he did not disclose the employment to Centrelink at any time before or during the period of employment and has not disclosed the employment or contended earnings to Centrelink to date;

(l) he does not remember how he came to be in possession of the undated, handwritten letter of Mr Alnajim;

(m) his work hours were "sometimes one morning and sometimes from midday until evening";

(n) Sky Supermarket opened from 6.00am until 11.00pm sometimes until midnight or 1.00am;

(o) he cannot recall the hours he worked and does not remember if he worked up to 60 hours in some weeks;

(p) sometimes he worked five days a week and sometimes he worked six days a week;

(q) he did not provide his tax file number to Mr Alnajim's accountant until after the accident;

(r) wages were paid in cash on site at Sky Supermarket;

(s) he was paid cash wages on a weekly basis;

(t) Mr Alnajim sent him the payslips all on the one occasion by either email or WhatsApp after the accident, in response to the claimant asking for them;

(u) he could not offer any reason as to why he did not provide a copy of the email or WhatsApp message from Mr Alnajim attaching the payslips in response to the interim directions dated 25 November 2025;

(v) whilst he opened a superannuation account on 8 September 2025, to date Mr Alnajim has not made any superannuation payments, although

Mr Alnajim has promised to pay;

(w) Sky Supermarket is a "grocery shop" and its "biggest sale was in tobacco";

(x) his day to day duties at Sky Supermarket involved "open the shop, would clean it, we see what we need in terms of we get it from outside. We will adjust things if it's ...part of the store and get ... and put them on. And also dealing with customers", and

(y) he did not have an interview with Mr Alnajim before he got the job and instead, Mr Alnajim "just gave [him] the job".

1. Mr Alnajim gave oral evidence via audio-visual link at the assessment conference and stated:

(a) the claimant came to be employed by him through a friend named Ali;

(b) he had an interview with the claimant prior to offering him employment;

(c) the claimant worked the "hours in the payslip";

(d) he would notify the claimant of upcoming work verbally by saying "tomorrow you're going to do by this like from - let's say from 9.00 to - let's say from 9.00 to 3.00 or form 3.00 to 7.00 or from 7.00 to 10.00, whatever, just by talking, you know";

(e) he had not had any employees prior to the claimant;

(f) he had no other employees during the claimant's period of employment;

(g) he has not had any employees since the claimant's employment ceased;

(h) the insurer's investigator attended Rockdale and asked him to write the undated handwritten letter[7];

(i) he paid the claimant in cash because he did not have "any money on the account in that moment and then that's why [he] give [the claimant] in cash but the thing is I give him payslip", and

(j) he provided payslips to the claimant every week or fortnight, depending on the pay cycle shown in the payslips that is, if the payslips record payment of weekly wages they were given to the claimant in cash weekly.

1. There are numerous inconsistencies in the evidence, including but not limited to those set out below.

Commencement date, hours of work and description of work

1. The claimant and Mr Alnajim state in their written statements dated 17 and

16 October 2025 respectively that the claimant commenced employment on

22 February 2025. This is inconsistent with the date on which the first pay period commences in the payslips being 24 February 2024. 2. According to the payslips the claimant worked an average of 58 hours per week. However, it is difficult to reconcile the oral evidence of the claimant and Mr Alnajim with the payslips. For example, at Transcript (T)25, Line (L)11 to 13 the claimant stated the following in answer to the question "what hours did you work":

"That will have been dependent on the work. Sometimes one morning and sometimes from midday until the evening".

1. This statement is not indicative of consistent 10 to 12 hour days, five to six days per week as suggested by the payslips.
2. When asked what hours he was required to work the claimant stated at Transcript T26, L17 to 18:

"...that depends on the needs. He comes early, he need for four hours, six hours..."

1. This is also not indicative of consistent 10 to 12 hour days.
2. At T26, L27 to 29 the claimant stated:

"He would tell me - he would tell me tomorrow you come at 10 o'clock. Tomorrow you come at 9.00. He would say tomorrow is holiday, the weekend then you start on Monday at that time."

1. This suggests the claimant did not work public holidays or weekends and worked up to five days per week, not six which is an average of 12 hours per day based on the payslips.
2. My impression at the assessment conference was that the claimant was somewhat surprised when it was put to him that the payslips show he often worked around 60 hours per week (the claimant ultimately said he could not remember if he worked more than or less than 60 hours in a week).[8]
3. When interviewed by the insurer's investigator and at the assessment conference

Mr Alnajim claimed to have no independent recollection of any salient details of the claimant's employment, repeatedly stating "it's in the payslips" or "what's in the payslips" as his answer to questions about the circumstances of employment. For example, when asked what hours the claimant worked Mr Alnajim stated at T47, L29 "What hours on the payslip". 4. Mr Alnajim did give an example of hours at T48, L9 to 10 as 9.00am to 3.00pm, which is six hours or 3.00pm to 7.00pm (four hours) or 7.00pm to 10.00pm (also four hours). This suggests the claimant worked four to six hours on any given day rather than 10 to 12 hours. 5. At the initial needs assessment on 17 June 2025 the claimant reported that he typically worked 45 hours per week, typically Monday to Friday from 6.00am to 3.00pm. The payslips are inconsistent with this. 6. In my view, none of the descriptions of hours worked in the evidence readily reconcile with the significant hours suggested by the payslips. 7. In Mr Alnajim's handwritten letter he states the claimant's "last working day was 10/04/2025, when [the claimant] informed me that he could no longer continue due to a car accident and health issues that prevent him from working". However, according to the APIB the accident occurred at 11.17pm on 10 April 2025 at Merrylands, from which the claimant states is 50 minutes to one hour travel by car to Rockdale. Sky Supermarket typically closes at 11.00pm, 1.00am at the latest. It is implausible in the circumstances that the claimant was at work on 10 April 2025, after the accident telling Mr Alnajim about the accident. 8. Various descriptions are given in the evidence as to the nature of the claimant's role at Sky Supermarkets and the duties the role entailed. There appears to be no consistent description and again, a reluctance by Mr Alnajim to commit to any specifics about the role. For example, at lines 129 to 154 of the transcript of interview on 1 October 2025 the following exchange occurs between the investigator and Mr Alnajim (KM refers to the investigator conducting the interview and NA is Mr Alnajim):

KM Yeah. What does he do like on a day-to-day basis?

NA You seeing with your eyes what the worker doing. That's exactly what's Ali

KM So I'm not using my observations. You just tell me what it is.

NA ...and then you see what the workers doing. That's exactly what's Ali doing.

KM Okay. Because in all fairness I got there. The worker had his head down

sitting in the chair not doing anything. So is that what...

NA So who going to serve the customer if he's sitting in a chair?

NA Who going, who, how, you said he sit in a chair doing nothing.

NA So what about if the customer coming in the shop? Who going to serve him.

NA Well, you're going to explain by your eyes because you see it.

KM I'm not the one that's, I'm not the one under investigation.

NA And then you see it how he's, and then you see it...

1. According to the above the role would appear to be limited to serving customers, which is not consistent with other evidence. Further, according to Mr Alnajim's subsequent evidence at the assessment conference he has not had any employees since the claimant such that the person Mr Alnajim referred the investigator to in the shop would not have been an employee.

1. In their respective written statements of 16 and 17 October 2025 the claimant and

Mr Alnajim give the same reasons for cash payments being that it was the claimant's preference because he was not good with technology. However, neither of them gave this reason at the assessment conference. They both gave different reasons as follows:

(a) the claimant said it was not a preference (he was not considering whether cash was better for him or not) but it was for his "means". There was no mention of any difficulty with technology as being the reason and no mention that cash was requested by the claimant as his preference. Instead, the claimant's evidence seems to be that Mr Alnajim paid cash, and did not stop paying cash but as this suited the claimant he did not say anything to Mr Alnajim[9], and

(b) on the other hand, Mr Alnajim stated at the assessment conference he made cash payments due to having insufficient funds in his bank account. Mr Alnajim did not make any statement consistent with his 16 October 2025 statement that the claimant requested cash as his preference because he was not good with technology. Instead, Mr Alnajim stated at T50, L29-34 when asked why wages were paid in cash:

"Because the thing is I don't have - I don't have any money on the account in that moment and then that's why I give him in cash but the thing is I give him payslip. So is there any issue? It's not. And then once I write on the paper that's my - that's - I read it so, I mean, I write it."

"My answer now I already told you I don't have money in the bank, that's why I give him cash but it will say on the - I will say in my letter, it will say on the - I think - I think I already - I think I call my accountant and he's already provide a payslip".

1. No explanation is given for the consistency in the written statements of Mr Alnajim dated 16 October 2025 and the claimant dated 17 October 2025 in circumstances where both gave different reasons at the assessment conference. No explanation is given for the inconsistency between the written statements and evidence at the assessment conference.
2. Lastly, the evidence establishes during a telephone call between the insurer and

Mr Alnajim on 8 August 2025, Mr Alnajim stated he paid the claimant's wages by bank transfer. There was no mention of any cash payments. This earlier statement of

Mr Alnajim is inconsistent with his subsequent statements that he paid all but the last two weeks in cash.

1. The claimant's evidence at the assessment conference is that payslips were not provided to the claimant during the course of his employment and were instead provided via WhatsApp on 20 May 2025, more than a month after the contended employment ceased.
2. On the other hand, Mr Alnajim's evidence is that he (or his accountant) provided payslips on a weekly basis in accordance with the pay cycle shown in the payslips. Further, it seems from Mr Alnajim's evidence at paragraph 78(b) that this was one reason he was content to pay cash, because there was a record in the payslip provided before or at the time of each payment.
3. Mr Alnajim's evidence is wholly inconsistent with the claimant's oral evidence and with the WhatsApp message showing payslips received after the accident.
4. The claimant's evidence that Mr Alnajim was the one who sent him the payslips by WhatsApp is inconsistent with the WhatsApp messages showing a person called "Abo Alhasean" provided the payslips to the claimant.

1. At the assessment conference the claimant stated it takes 50 minutes to one hour to travel from his home to Rockdale.[10] He stated it was "impossible" for him to drive 50 minutes as a result of injuries sustained in the subject accident.[11] He stated he also suffers from 50 minutes as a passenger.[12] The claimant states he was paid his last two weeks' wages by bank transfer because he was unable to travel the long distance to Rockdale to collect cash payment.[13]
2. The transaction summary for NAB account ending 7962, however, records the claimant was in Rockdale on 29 May 2025 and again on 17 July 2025. On 29 May 2025 the claimant made a withdrawal from a NAB owned ATM in Rockdale. The evidence establishes there is a NAB branch on the same street, opposite Sky Supermarket in Rockdale. There is a probability that the ATM used by the claimant on 29 May 2025 was the ATM located at the NAB branch opposite Sky Supermarket.
3. The NAB transaction summary is inconsistent with the claimant's evidence that he did not travel to Rockdale after the accident and that it is "impossible" for him to drive to Rockdale. It is inconsistent with the claimant's evidence that the last two payments were made by bank transfer because he was unable to travel the long distance to travel to Rockdale to collect cash payment.
4. However, the question arises as to why the claimant did not collect wages for both the last two weeks worked before the accident when he attended Rockdale on

29 May 2025. Instead, one payment was made by bank transfer on 29 May 2025 and the other on 12 June 2025. 5. Further, the payment made on 29 May 2025 is said to be paid in respect of the second last payslip which has a pay period ending 6 April 2025 and a paid date of 7 April 2025. Mr Alnajim stated at the assessment conference at T50, L31 to 32 "... that's why I give him in cash but the thing is I give him payslip", inferring that the payslip confirms payment is made. In the case of the second last payslip this should mean payment was made in cash on 7 April 2025. 6. According to the last payslip, being the only payslip with a paid date after the accident (paid date is 14 April 2025) the claimant worked 34 hours between 7 and 10 April 2025 suggesting the claimant was in attendance at Sky Supermarket on at least three days, possibly four days after payment was due for wages in the previous payslip and before the accident occurred on the night of 10 April 2025. The claimant's evidence that he was unable to travel to Rockdale to collect cash wages is inconsistent with the information in the payslips suggesting wages in the second last payslip could have been collected during the claimant's attendances from 7 to 10 April 2025. 7. There is no explanation as to why the claimant did not collect cash wages for the second last payslip showing a paid date of 7 April 2025 on one of the three to four days he was likely at the store before the accident, according to details in the last payslip. 8. There is also no explanation as to why payment by bank transfer on 29 May 2025 was made late, almost 7.5 weeks after the paid date of 7 April 2025 contended in the payslip or why the last payment was not made by bank transfer until 12 June 2025, almost 8.5 weeks after it was said to have been paid on 14 April 2025 in the payslip. 9. Interestingly, the bank transfers were not made until after provision of the payslips by Abo Alhasean on 20 May 2025. 10. A significant question also arises as to why the claimant withdrew $1,200 on

29 May 2025 from a NAB owned ATM in Rockdale immediately after wages in this sum were paid into his account on the same date. One might speculate that it was to return the funds to Mr Alnajim, after Mr Alnajim made the bank transfer to give credence to the payslips. 11. Overall, I am not persuaded the claimant's or Mr Alnajim's evidence about wage payments by bank transfers is cogent.

1. In my view, Mr Alnajim presented in a cagey manner during the recorded interview with the insurer's investigator on 1 October 2025 and during oral evidence at the assessment conference. On both occasions Mr Alnajim claimed he could not recall much detail about the circumstances of the claimant's alleged employment. Instead, he simply referred the questioner to the payslips for most of his answers. The impression I am left with is that Mr Alnajim did not want to make any substantive statement about the circumstances of the claimant's employment in case it contradicted the claimant's evidence. However, if the alleged employment were genuine there is no logical explanation as to why Mr Alnajim would be unwilling to provide any details.
2. An inability to recollect circumstances of employment for a particular employee might be understandable in the context of having had many employees come and go before and after the claimant or where the employment was not recent. However, if

Mr Alnajim's oral evidence at the assessment conference about other employees is accepted[14] the claimant is the only employee Sky Supermarket has ever had. There had been no other employees before, during or after the claimant's employment.[15] Further the payslips contend the claimant was at work for at least five days a week, up to 12 hours per day. It is not suggested in the payslips that the hours were sporadic or nominal. In all of these circumstances I do not consider it plausible that Mr Alnajim does not have an independent recollection of the circumstances of the claimant's alleged employment in his business. 3. One telling example occurs at lines 304 to 313 of the record of interview on

NA I don't know. You should ask Ali that question...

KM No, but I'm asking you did he resign or did you tell him...

1. I do not consider it plausible that a small business employer such as Sky Supermarket would not know the circumstances in which an employee's employment came to an end, particularly in the circumstances of a business only ever having one employee and the alleged employment only ending less than five months before the interview on 1 October 2025. If the employment were genuine, it seems to me Mr Alnajim must know whether the claimant resigned or whether he terminated the claimant's employment.
2. On occasions during his evidence Mr Alnajim suggested one reason he did not recall relevant matters was that the circumstances occurred long ago. However, Mr Alnajim was interviewed by the insurer on 1 October 2025, less than five months after the claimant's employment is said to have ceased, only four months after the claimant says Mr Alnajim provided payslips and only around three months after the last payment of wages is said to have been made into the claimant's bank account. At the time of the interview with the investigator the claimant's employment was relatively recent. Further, it seems Mr Alnajim had a good recollection of the details of the claimant's employment approximately two weeks after his interview with the investigator, when he provided a formal statement to the claimant's solicitor on 16 October 2025. There is no explanation or evidence that might explain how Mr Alnajim was able to remember details about the employment on 16 October 2025 when he was unable to remember any significant detail two weeks earlier, on 1 October 2025.
3. There are significant inconsistencies in Mr Alnajim's evidence. For example, Mr Alnajim stated during the interview on 1 October 2025 that a person who could be observed inside Sky Supermarket during the interview is an employee who was hired to replace the claimant. However, at the assessment conference Mr Alnajim stated he had not had any other employees before, during or after the claimant. This is not a trivial inconsistency. It is not an inconsistency that has any reasonable explanation.

Mr Alnajim's evidence there have been no other employees at the assessment conference is wholly inconsistent with his earlier statement to the insurer's investigator. 4. In all the circumstances, I conclude on balance Mr Alnajim's evidence is neither reliable nor cogent. In many respects, it also appears to be untruthful (for example, presumably one of the two answers about other employees cannot be correct and either his

16 October 2025 statement or his evidence at the assessment conference about the reasons he paid cash is incorrect). 5. Overall, in relation to the whole of Mr Alnajim's evidence, I am not persuaded that it should be given any weight.

1. Although the claimant subsequently stated he did not remember how he provided bank details, he had clearly stated at T15, L19 to 23 he provided bank details to

Mr Alnajim verbally. This is inconsistent with the WhatsApp messages. 2. The WhatsApp messages are inconsistent with the claimant's evidence he provided bank details to Mr Alnajim and his supplementary statement that he provided them to Ali Alkhazal (the person he says introduced him to Mr Alnajim), who provided them to Mr Alnajim on his behalf. The WhatsApp messages show bank details provided to Abo Alhasean rather than Ali. 3. The WhatsApp messages are inconsistent with the claimant's statement by email to the insurer on 8 August 2025 that he only has two accounts being Commonwealth Bank account ending 4883 and NAB account ending 7962. It appears the claimant in fact holds at least a third account being NAB account ending 3064 provided in the WhatsApp messages. The WhatsApp messages are also inconsistent with the transaction summary for NAB account ending 7962 which shows the payments were made to that account and not the account details ending 3064 provided in the WhatsApp messages. 4. Accordingly, there is no evidence as to when or how the claimant provided bank details for the subject account being NAB account ending 7962 to Mr Alnajim for the purpose of the payments relied on in that account. The claimant's supplementary submission the WhatsApp messages show provision of bank account details by the claimant to Ali Alkhazal for the purpose of making the payments relied on is not supported by the evidence. The WhatsApp messages raise more questions than answers. 5. No explanation has been offered by the claimant as to why he provided details of a third account (or why the third account was not disclosed to the insurer in his

8 August 2025 email to the insurer) to a person named Abo Alhasean (not previously mentioned) or why that person in the same chat sequence is providing payslips said to be from Sky Supermarket. There is no evidence upon which a conclusion could be reached as to the purpose of provision of bank details to Abo Alhasean in the WhatsApp messages. The claimant did not disclose the existence of, or any bank statements for, NAB account ending 3064. 6. No explanation has been offered by the claimant for provision of Version One of the tax return containing Sky Supermarket's tax agent details and a South Australian address for the claimant or for the fact Version Two significantly differs from Version One. 7. Mr Alnajim's evidence that he made pay as you go tax payments during the period of employment but held onto superannuation payments pending provision of superannuation fund details by the claimant is inconsistent with the claimant's evidence he did not provide his tax file number until after the accident. It is unclear how

Mr Alnajim could have made pay as you go payments on behalf of the claimant without the claimant's tax file number. On balance, the evidence establishes all pay as you go tax was likely not remitted to the ATO until after the accident. 8. As at the assessment conference date of 4 February 2026, superannuation benefits have not been paid despite the claimant asserting he opened a superannuation account on 8 September 2025. No explanation has been given as to why funds continue to remain unpaid. Mr Alnajim states in his 16 October 2025 statement that he is holding superannuation funds on behalf of the claimant pending nomination of a fund account by the claimant. However, at the time of this statement the claimant had held a superannuation account since 8 September 2025 (assuming the document relied on by the claimant in this regard is genuine). 9. The payslips show a base hourly rate of $25 which is inconsistent with the rate paid. There is no suggestion in the payslips the rate paid is, for example, the overtime rate calculated from the base rate. 10. The payslips record an entitlement to, and accrual of, annual leave with 28.46 hours owing upon cessation of employment yet the claimant has not asserted any entitlement to be paid this amount and there is no evidence of accrued leave having been paid. If the employment were genuine, one would expect there to also be some evidence about when this would be paid, in addition to the outstanding superannuation. The amount owing for accrued annual leave would be $914.42 plus any applicable annual leave loading. 11. The claimant's and Mr Alnajim's written statements that the claimant would be promoted to manager with a significant increase in remuneration appear inconsistent with Mr Alnajim's evidence at the assessment conference that the claimant is the only employee Sky Supermarket has had. There had been no other employee before, during or after the claimant's employment. If there were a genuine need for the claimant's services, including to be upskilled to manager one would expect the claimant to be replaced after the accident by another employee. 12. The claimant's statement in an email to the insurer dated 22 July 2025 that his Centrelink benefits had ceased is inconsistent with evidence that establishes the claimant continued to be in receipt of his full Centrelink pension/allowances since the accident.

1. It is curious that the claimant attends Rockdale at around 11.00pm on 29 May 2025 (when he has said it is "impossible" for him to drive to Rockdale after the accident), the same day Mr Alnajim is said to pay wages into his account of $1,200 and withdraws precisely the same amount immediately after the deposit from a NAB owned ATM in Rockdale (likely from the NAB branch ATM opposite Sky Supermarket).
2. It is also curious that the claimant's Commonwealth Bank account said to be the only account he had during his employment does not place the claimant at or around Rockdale during the period of employment. This seems somewhat unusual based on the pattern of spending in circumstances of alleged 12 hour days, five to six hours per week said to be worked at Rockdale.
3. I am of the view a number of features of the evidence puts the claimant's credit in issue, including:

(a) non-disclosure of the employment or alleged receipt of wages from Sky Supermarket to Centrelink;

(b) numerous inconsistencies in the claimant's evidence and Mr Alnajim's evidence, which I consider to be material and significant and not reasonably explained by the evidence;

(c) NAB transaction summaries which appear to place the claimant in Rockdale on two occasions after the accident including one on the same date the first bank transfer's is made, despite the claimant's evidence he has been unable to travel to Rockdale since the accident;

(d) the claimant's failure to disclose the third bank account identified in the WhatsApp messages to the insurer (including his express statement in an email on 8 August 2025 that he did not hold any other accounts);

(e) the claimant's inability to provide any explanation for failing to provide any documents in response to the direction issued on 25 November 2025 at paragraph 16(e) above[16] or in response to further directions issued on

4 February 2026;

(f) the likelihood there are other relevant communications (email and/or WhatsApp messages) with Ali Alkhazal, Abo Alhasean, Mr Alnajim and/or Mr Alnajim's accountant that have not been disclosed by the claimant despite the directions issued on 25 November 2025 and 4 February 2026,[17] and

(g) likely selective preparation of the NAB transaction summary such that all transactions are not disclosed and potential redaction to disclosed transactions noting at least one material redaction above in an earlier version of this document.

1. In circumstances where the claimant's credit is in issue, the selfies were only provided after the conclusion of the assessment conference and the claimant declined to provide his phone to the insurer's expert for expert opinion, I consider the claimant's self-serving evidence he did not alter the metadata in the images should be treated as unreliable.
2. The selfies appear to be in the form of phone gallery screenshots (not original image files) with overlays (including times and dates) as visual text embedded in the screenshot images. What would be required to verify the time and date the images were taken is the metadata embedded in the original image files. Instead, the claimant has provided screenshots of a phone display with editable visual text that is, self-reported metadata. The claimant could have made his phone available to the insurer's expert for opinion on whether the self-reported metadata has been changed but has declined to do so.
3. Given the claimant's credit is in issue, late provision of the selfies despite the earner dispute being on foot for some time, bank transaction summaries placing the claimant in Rockdale post-accident and the claimant's refusal to provide his phone to an expert, I am of the view the possibility that the selfies were taken on a date after the accident cannot be dismissed.
4. In any event, I am of the view the selfies do not evidence an employer/employee relationship regardless of when they were taken. The selfies simply show the claimant and Mr Alnajim appearing jovial together in the store. As the claimant's credit is in issue and I do not consider Mr Alnajim's evidence is reliable or cogent, the possibility that the photographs were taken in some other context cannot be ruled out.
5. I am not persuaded post-accident lodgement of a tax return declaring earnings from Sky Supermarket is evidence of pre-accident earnings. Ultimately, the claimant received a full refund because gross earnings were below the tax free threshold of $18,200. To the extent Mr Alnajim is said to have paid the tax out of pocket there is no reliable evidence it was paid by Mr Alnajim from his own funds[18] and having regard to the 29 May 2025 withdrawal, an arrangement for funds to ultimately be returned to him, if he did pay, cannot be ruled out.
6. Lastly, there is the issue that the claimant had not worked since his arrival in Australia in or about 2009 and that full Centrelink benefits continued during the alleged period of employment.[19] Whilst this is not definitive of whether there was any pre-accident employment it suggests a degree of scrutiny should be applied to the contended sudden employment seven to eight weeks before the accident in circumstances of a 16 year history of unemployment and instead, the claimant being the full-time carer for his wife and in receipt of Centrelink benefits for same.

1. The claimant seeks costs pursuant to s 8.10(4) by seeking an order from the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) permitting payment of their costs in circumstances where such costs are not permitted by the regulations.
2. Section 8.10(4) provides for costs to be permitted by the "Commission". As Merit Reviewer, I am not the Commission and therefore do not have jurisdiction to consider whether costs outside costs permitted by the regulations should be permitted by the Commission. Accordingly, the matter is referred back to the Commission for determination of the claimant's application for costs under s 8.10(4).

1. The claimant has the onus of proof in relation to establishing he is an earner for the purpose of the MAI Act. In determining this question as to whether the claimant is an earner, the decisionmaker is informed and persuaded only by the presentation of evidence. Evidence is material which tends to persuade the decisionmaker of the truth or probability of the facts being alleged. Evidence may be photography, documentary or testimonial, but will only succeed in persuading the decisionmaker if it appears as being truthful, reliable and cogent. In civil cases such as this the standard of proof depends on the balance (or preponderance) of probabilities. This simply means a party must prove their case is more likely than not to be true. If the scales tip in favour of the party, however slight, they have proved their case. But if the probabilities are equal or they tip in favour of the other party, they have failed to prove their case.
2. There are numerous inconsistencies in the evidence. I do not consider the inconsistencies to be trivial or explained by any evidence. The inconsistencies are, in my view, material and significant in the context of this dispute.
3. I have concluded above that Mr Alnajim's evidence is neither reliable nor cogent and should be given no weight. I have also determined above that the claimant's evidence is neither reliable nor cogent and that aspects of the evidence put the claimant's credit in issue.
4. In my view, the unreliable and unconvincing nature of the evidence is such that it gives rise to at least an equal (if not higher) probability that an arrangement was made after the accident between the claimant and others to give an appearance of pre-accident employment in circumstances where there had not been any pre-accident employment.
5. Overall, the evidence does not appear as being truthful, reliable and cogent. As such I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant is an earner for the purpose of the MAI Act. The claimant has therefore failed to discharge his burden of proof.
6. For the reasons outlined above I conclude the claimant is not an earner within the meaning of "earner" in Sch 1, cl 2 of the MAI Act. Accordingly:

(a) the reviewable decision is affirmed, and

(b) the matter is referred back to the Commission for determination of the claimant's application for costs under s 8.10(4) of the MAI Act.

1. In making this decision, I have considered the following:
   • the Application, Reply and supporting documentation including further documents and submissions provided by the parties in response to directions and after the assessment conference;
   • evidence given during the assessment conference on 4 February 2026;
   • MAI Act;
   • Motor Accident Guidelines, and
   • the Regulation.

[1] The last bank deposit relied on as wages paid by Mr Alnajim is dated 12 June 2025 and it can be inferred from the content of the letter that it was written after this payment was made.

[2] The amounts in the balance column do not reconcile with ingoing and outgoing amounts in the corresponding lines such that it appears not all transactions in the stated period are listed and accordingly, the document is in redacted form likely because of search filters used by the claimant to identify and produce the list of transactions.

[3] See for example ATM withdrawal on 3 June 2025 recorded in the description as "NABATM CSH 03RD12:46 MERRYLANDS" "03RD" likely representing 3 June 2025.

[4] See photograph on page 173 of the insurer's first document bundle showing NAB signage opposite the location of Sky Supermarket.

[5] BSB and first five numbers of the account number have been redacted for the purpose of this decision.

[6] Given the time of the following message on 19 May 2025 the date of this message is presumably

[7] The evidence establishes this is incorrect and that the letter was procured by the claimant, not the insurer.

[8] See exchange at T26, L33 to T27, L27.

[14] Despite being wholly inconsistent with statements made during the interview with the insurer's investigator.

[17] It can be inferred from the WhatsApp messages produced and other evidence that there are likely other relevant communications. For example, it is presently unclear how the claimant came to be in possession of Version One of the tax return, given the inclusion of Sky Supermarket's tax agent details and an unknown South Australian address. Noting Version One was provided to the insurer the day after bank transactions show the claimant in Rockdale on 17 July 2025, absent production of a covering email or WhatsApp message relevant to Version One by the claimant, one probability is that the claimant collected Version One from Mr Alnajim when he attended Rockdale on 17 July 2025. It is also unclear how the claimant came to be in possession of a business activity statement for Sky Supermarket showing a tax debt.

[18] I have concluded no weight should be given to Mr Alnajim's evidence as a whole but including by reason that his evidence he paid pay as you go tax contemporaneously is inconsistent with provision of a tax file number after the accident, not before.

[19] Based on the earnings alleged in the payslip there would appear to be no question that the claimant's benefits would have been significantly reduced, including possibly being reduced to nil as a result of these earnings.