"2. Since my injury occurred, my lower back symptoms have been getting progressively worse. I consulted my treating doctors, and a lumbar fusion surgery was recommended.

1. On 16 November 2023 lumbar fusion surgery was performed by Dr Yanni Sergides."[19]
2. The applicant stated that, since his back surgery, he continues to suffer numerous problems and felt that the surgery did not improve his condition.
3. The applicant set out his ongoing disabilities in detail at [5] of his statement dated 5 February 2026.[20]

1. On 5 April 2023, Dr Sergides provided a report to Dr Giblin.[21] Dr Sergides noted the following history provided by the applicant:

"[The applicant] used to work as a tyre fitter in 2005 when he suffered an injury at work when tyres fell on him. He continued to try to work for a bit but his last permanent employment was in 2006. He has had several more casual employments since then but he tells me he's been given the sack when they've found out he's been on Workcover. [The applicant] has had symptoms of axial low back pain which has been severe [sic] radiating to both buttocks and both hamstrings and also both thighs, really since 2005. He has had various reviews from orthopaedic and other surgeons and has been offered surgery several times. He's had numerous cortisone injections. He's had many attempts at conservative measures such as physiotherapy and rehabilitation.

[The applicant] does think his symptoms have become worse in the last six months or so. This has prompted the review by you [Dr Giblin] and the suggestion that surgery should be considered."[22]

1. On examination, Dr Sergides observed that the applicant was in quite severe pain. He was unable to stand completely straight and unable to be examined on the couch. The doctor reviewed the lumbar CT scan of July 2022, the lumbar MRI scan and X-ray of July 2022 and noted a Grade 1-2 isthmic spondylolisthesis at L5/S1 with significant loss of height of the L4/5 disc; the spondylolisthesis appeared to progress in the upright position; severe foraminal stenosis, in particular, at L5/S1 with compression of the exiting L5 nerve roots.
2. Dr Sergides concluded that he had no doubt, given the severity of the applicant's symptoms, he would benefit from a posterior lumbar interbody fusion between L4 and S1.
3. On 19 December 2023, Dr Sergides provided a post-operative report to Dr Giblin.[23] Dr Sergides observed that the applicant was doing extremely well and that he had been in severe pain pre-operatively and now had very little pain in his back or legs. He also observed that the applicant was walking much more upright and quickly.
4. On 28 February 2024, the applicant reported recent increasing flare-ups of lumbar spine pain to Aspire Physiotherapy and Sports Injury Clinic.[24]
5. On 19 April 2024, Dr Sergides provided a report to Dr Giblin.[25] Dr Sergides referred the applicant for a CT scan of his lumbar spine noting the following:

"[The applicant] woke up on the 3rd of March with severe lumbar pain. It was so severe it caused him to vomit and he went to Camden Hospital. No scan was done and it sounds as though the symptoms have improved since then. He experienced dysaesthesiae in the soles of his feet at the same time. This dysaesthesiae appears to have improved and sensation appears to be almost normal back in his feet. The back pain also appears to be improved. He tells me it feels comfortable when he is upright and walking around but there is a tightness or stiffness in the mid- to upper lumbar spine - he says above the fusion."[26]

1. On 19 April 2024, Dr Sergides provided a report to Dr Giblin after reviewing the applicant's recent lumbar spine CT scan.[27] Dr Sergides opined that the CT scan was satisfactory and showed no issues with the surgical instrumentation or any fractures that could explain the applicant's symptoms. He observed some vacuum in the L3/4 disc and wondered whether that could be the source of the applicant's symptoms. The doctor suggested a cortisone injection into the L3/4 facet joints.
2. On 9 December 2024, the applicant consulted Dr Daniel Farbodmanesh, specialist in rehabilitation medicine, on the referral of Dr Vinpin Goyal, general practitioner. The doctor took a history that was consistent with the evidence. On examination, Dr Farbodmanesh observed the following:

"... he had a slow sit to stand pace velocity. There was severe allodynia over the lumbar spine in multiple compartments both mid line and paravertebrally. The surgical scar was completely healed. The piriformis were also tender. The superior cluneal nerves were tender. There was increased tone in the paravertebral muscles. He reported persistent numbness in his lower limbs during the examination. Reflexes were symmetrically reduced in his upper and lower limbs. SLR test was positive bilaterally at 30°. On gait examination he had a wide base of support but I did not appreciate any antalgia. He mobilised unaided. There was no evidence of foot drop bringing the power examination to normal."[28]

1. Dr Farbodmanesh recommended the applicant undergo a lumbosacral MRI scan and a bone scan/SPECT CT.
2. On 12 February 2025, the applicant consulted Dr Farbodmanesh complaining of ongoing pain in his lumbar spine as well as bilateral lower limb paraesthesia which he described as complete numbness below the knees. The doctor noted that a bone scan on the 4 January 2025 did not show any significant focal soft tissue inflammation or synovitis and again, there was no increased vascularity or delayed bone uptake suggestive of hardware complications from the L4 to S1 pedicle screws. There was degenerative uptake in the left sacroiliac joint. On examination, Dr Farbodmanesh observed severe allodynia over the mid line in the lumbar spine as well as tenderness around the mid line and bilateral sacroiliac joints. The doctor discussed treatment options with the applicant including opioid and non-opioid treatment, topical agents, including compounded creams followed by physiotherapy and medial and lateral branch facet joint blocks and sacroiliac joint blocks to clarify the pathology of the pain and pain generators.[29]
3. On 17 December 2025, the applicant consulted Dr Shareef Dowla, neurologist, on the referral of Dr Goyal. Dr Dowla noted that the applicant presented with the onset of severe numbness in his feet and legs following a lumbar fusion between L4 and S1 by Dr Sergides on 16 November 2023. The doctor performed a nerve conduction study that demonstrated small sural sensory action potentially in keeping with mild peripheral neuropathy or diabetic poly neuropathy. Dr Dowla opined that the cause of the applicant's persistent numbness was difficult to explain but that it was certainly not related to diabetic poly neuropathy. He recommended that the applicant undergo another lumbar spine MRI scan for further assessment.[30]

1. On 5 August 2024, the applicant consulted Dr Peter Giblin, orthopaedic surgeon, at the request of his lawyers. In evidence, there is a report by Dr Giblin dated 5 August 2024.[31] Relevant parts of that report are referred to below.
2. Dr Giblin took a history that was consistent with the evidence.
3. Dr Giblin recorded the applicant's disabilities and complaints as follows:

"His main complaint is that he has constant unremitting pain and aching in his low back radiating around towards his lower abdomen and it's associated with sharp stabbing pains and there is permanent numbness or at least decreased sensation around the foot and ankle in both his legs.

He has put on weight, can only walk ten minutes, stand for ten minutes and cannot sit for more than fifteen minutes. He no longer holds a driver's license and he never gets more than three hours of sleep a night in a stretch. His sex life is tabled as totally absent. He has troubles going up and down stairs. His legs feel weak and unreliable. He says he is unable to do anything in terms of his domestic responsibilities except make some bread and tea. He spends most of the day sitting outside."[32]

1. Dr Giblin conducted a physical examination of the applicant and reported his observations. He listed the X-rays and investigations provided to him and commented on them.
2. In respect of the applicant's diagnosis, Dr Giblin stated that the applicant had "a well recorded history of soft tissue injuries to his low back occurring in the course of his work duties on 17 August 2005."[33]
3. In respect of the applicant's prognosis, Dr Giblin opined as follows:

"His condition is stable and his general prognosis is guarded.

He is never going to get any better than he is now.

He has the perennial and insoluble problem of a blue collar worked [sic: worker] with a bad back for which there is just no satisfactory medical or surgical solution.

He will now spend the rest of his life as a picture of spinal misery with ongoing symptoms, increasing disabilities, and the prospect of post-fusion complications. These will include but not be limited to adjacent segment disease at L3/4, infection, loosening, periprosthetic fracture and chemical toxicity.

This gentlemen's condition is stable. He is permanently unfit for paid employment. Any attempt at paid employment will be associated with the significant liability of further material injury from innocuous physical events."[34]

1. Dr Giblin opined that he regarded the applicant's condition as stable and having reached maximum medical improvement.
2. Dr Giblin assessed the applicant's WPI at 23%. He explained that he had made no deduction under s 323 of the 1998 Act on the basis that the pre-existing pars defects at L5 were a vulnerability per se and the applicant was able to engage in extremely heavy strenuous work environments without any symptomatology or impairment.

1. On 3 November 2025, the applicant consulted Dr Peter Bentivoglio, neurosurgeon, at the request of EML. In evidence, there is a report by Dr Bentivoglio in respect of the abovementioned consultation dated 21 November 2025.[35] Relevant parts of that report are referred to below.
2. Dr Bentivoglio took a history that was consistent with the evidence.
3. Dr Bentivoglio recorded the applicant's current symptoms as follows:

"He now rates his low back pain as 7/10 going into both legs, left side equals right, with numbness of his feet and weakness of his legs. His walking is restricted to 5 minutes. He does minimal driving. His sitting is restricted. He lives in a boarding house where there are no cleaning duties."[36]

1. On examination of the applicant, Dr Bentivoglio reported as follows:

"His gait was normal. There was wasting of his right calf. Straight leg raising on the right side was 60° and on the left side was 60°. He had decreased back movement. His tone was normal. Power revealed bilateral weakness of toe extension. There was decreased sensation in the L5 territory of both feet. His reflexes revealed bilaterally absent knee and ankle reflexes."[37]

1. Dr Bentivoglio provided the following diagnosis:

"My working diagnosis in this man is a gentleman with persistent axial low back pain, questionably a failed fusion, who has bilateral L5 radiculopathies with weakness of toe extension and altered sensation in the L5 territory with significant decrease in back movement."[38]

1. In respect of the applicant's capacity for work, Dr Bentivoglio opined as follows:

"At this stage, he is certainly not able to get back to his pre-injury duties which entailed heavy lifting and repetitive bending and twisting as he has had a two level fusion and he will never be able to do that sort of work again. At best, he would be able to get back to appropriate duties, light duties not lifting more than 5-10kg and avoiding anything which puts a lot of stress and strain on his back."[39]

1. Dr Bentivoglio further opined that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement from his spinal fusion and that he should be able to get back to part-time suitable work starting at 16 hours per week, avoiding lifting greater than 5kg and avoiding repetitive bending, twisting or anything that put a lot of stress and strain on his back.
2. In respect of further investigations, Dr Bentivoglio opined as follows:

"The further investigations that are required to confirm or clarify the treatment options is to do a CT scan to make sure that the fusion at the L4/5 and L5/S1 level has taken. If it has not, he may well have to have further surgery in the form of an anterior fusion. He also has significant degenerative disease in his sacroiliac joint which will need to be referred to a pain clinic for cortisone injections and also consideration of radiofrequency ablation to the sacroiliac joints but only after we are convinced that the fusion at the L4/5 and L5/S1 level has taken."[40]

1. Dr Bentivoglio did not provide a WPI assessment.

1. The applicant provided written submissions dated 11 February 2026,[41] an outline of which is provided below.
2. The applicant seeks the following:

(a) a reconsideration of the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016 under s 57(1) of the PIC Act, and

(b) a referral for a further medical assessment by the President of the Commission under s 329(1)(b) of the 1998 Act.

1. The applicant's physical condition has deteriorated since the issue of AMS McGroder's MAC which is evident by the need for lumbar fusion surgery.
2. The applicant's present claim pertains to a threshold dispute. Such dispute is evidenced by EML's letter dated 21 November 2024 wherein it refused to concede the work injury damages or high needs thresholds.
3. In his submissions, the applicant referred to Martinovic v Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales & Ors[42] (Martinovic) and Samuel v Sebel Furniture Ltd[43] (Samuel) in respect of the applicable principles for a reconsideration.
4. Based on the principles in the cases referred to, the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016 ought to be reconsidered and thereafter, rescinded and the applicant be allowed to appeal AMS McGroder's MAC.
5. The reconsideration is sought to enable an assessment of the applicant's WPI so as to make a threshold claim.
6. It would be manifestly unjust to the applicant in the circumstances of this matter to not allow the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016 to be set aside and thereby prevent his legitimate dispute from being ventilated in the Commission.
7. There would be no prejudice to the respondent if the reconsideration is granted and the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016 is rescinded.
8. Any delay is inconsequential as the respondent has been on notice of the applicant's intentions with regard to the applicant's Application and the further assessment sought.
9. The applicant is not seeking to prolong litigation indefinitely. The Application is sought for a limited and clear purpose.
10. The terms of the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016 were reflective of AMS McGroder's assessment as it stood in 2016. The applicant's condition has clearly changed and deteriorated. Therefore, the Certificate of Determination is not reflective of the applicant's current state and should not inhibit him from his legitimate entitlements.
11. The applicant relies on s 329(1)(b) of the 1998 Act in seeking a referral by the President to a Medical Assessor of the Commission as well as Target Australia Pty Ltd v Mansour[44] (Mansour), Miloslavjevic v Medina Property Services Pty Ltd[45] (Miloslavjevic) and Read v Liverpool City Council[46] (Read).
12. The dictates of justice require the referral of the applicant's physical condition to a Medical Assessor for assessment.
13. This claim could not have been brought earlier because it could only be brought on the deterioration of the applicant's condition and following his recovery from lumbar fusion surgery. Once Dr Giblin's report came to hand, it was served on the respondent and a claim pertaining to threshold was made on the respondent, which was disputed.
14. There is no reason, based on the statute or the circumstances of this case, for the matter not to be referred to a Medical Assessor for assessment. Doing so would prevent the applicant from ventilating a genuine claim.
15. The subject discretion is not sought to be utilised in an unrestricted or unlimited way. The applicant seeks the referral of his matter to a Medical Assessor for assessment of impairment that he has sustained in the course of his employment and for which he would, otherwise, have no recourse than to rely on the basis of appeal or reconsideration as ventilated in these submissions.
16. The respondent has not asserted any basis for not conceding the thresholds.

1. The respondent provided written submissions dated 9 March 2026,[47] an outline of which is provided below.
2. The respondent stated that it did not oppose the request for reconsideration under s 57(1) of the PIC Act or the proposed referral for further assessment under s 329 of the 1998 Act.

"(1) Only one assessment may be made of the degree of permanent impairment of an injured worker.

(1A) A reference in subsection (1) to an assessment includes an assessment of the degree of permanent impairment made by the Commission in the course of the determination of a dispute about the degree of the impairment that is not the subject of a referral under this Part.

(2) The medical assessment certificate that is given in connection with that assessment is the only medical assessment certificate that can be used in connection with any further or subsequent medical dispute about the degree of permanent impairment of the worker as a result of the injury concerned (whether the subsequent or further dispute is in connection with a claim for permanent impairment compensation, the commutation of a liability for compensation or a claim for work injury damages).

(3) Accordingly, a medical dispute about the degree of permanent impairment of a worker as a result of an injury cannot be referred for, or be the subject of, assessment if a medical dispute about that matter has already been the subject of -

(a) assessment and a medical assessment certificate under this Part, or

(b) a determination by the Commission under Part 4.

(4) This section does not affect the operation of section 327 (Appeal against medical assessment) or 352 (Appeal against decision of Commission constituted by

1. Section 327 of the 1998 Act relevantly provides:

"(1) A party to a medical dispute may appeal against a medical assessment under this Part, but only in respect of a matter that is appealable under this section and only on the grounds for appeal under this section.

(3) The grounds for appeal under this section are any of the following grounds -

(a) deterioration of the worker's condition that results in an increase in the degree of permanent impairment,

(b) availability of additional relevant information (but only if the additional information was not available to, and could not reasonably have been obtained by, the appellant before the medical assessment appealed against),

(c) the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria,

(d) the medical assessment certificate contains a demonstrable error.

(4) An appeal is to be made by application to the President. The appeal is not to proceed unless the President is satisfied that, on the face of the application and any submissions made to the President, at least one of the grounds for appeal specified in subsection (3) has been made out.

(6) The President may refer a medical assessment for further assessment under section 329 as an alternative to an appeal against the assessment (but only if the matter could otherwise have proceeded on appeal under this section).

(7) There is to be no appeal against a medical assessment once the dispute concerned has been the subject of determination by a court or the Commission or agreement registered under section 66A of the 1987 Act.

1. The grounds for appeal in s 327(3) of the 1998 Act (in this case, the deterioration ground) are not caught by s 322A of the 1998 Act.
2. Section 329 of the 1998 Act provides:

"(1) A matter referred for assessment under this Part may be referred again on one or more further occasions for assessment in accordance with this Part, but only by -

(a) the President as an alternative to an appeal against the assessment as provided by section 327, or

(b) a court or the Commission.

(1A) A matter referred for assessment under this Part may be referred again on one or more further occasions by the President to the medical assessor for reconsideration.

(2) A certificate as to a matter referred again for further assessment or reconsideration prevails over any previous certificate as to the matter to the extent of any inconsistency."

1. The applicant seeks to have the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016 reconsidered and rescinded.
2. The Commission's power to reconsider and rescind the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016 is contained in s 57 of the PIC Act. Section 57(1) relevantly states:

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

1. The applicant then seeks to have the matter referred back to a Medical Assessor for reconsideration of AMS McGroder's MAC pursuant to ss 327(6) and/or 329(1)(a) of the 1998 Act.

1. The effect of ss 322A and 327(7) of the 1998 Act is that the applicant is barred from seeking an appeal of AMS McGroder's MAC dated 6 October 2016 or a further assessment as provided by s 329 of the 1998 Act unless the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016 is revoked or set aside. Section 57 of the PIC Act allows for that to occur.
2. A summary of the principles regarding a reconsideration were set out by Roche DP in Samuel as follows:

"58. Having regard to the above authorities and the provisions and objectives of the 1998 Act I believe that the following principles are applicable to reconsideration applications under section 350(3) of the 1998 Act:

1. the section gives the Commission a wide discretion to reconsider its previous decisions ('Hardaker');
2. whilst the word 'decision' is not defined in section 350, it is defined for the purposes of section 352 to include 'an award, order, determination, ruling and direction'. In my view 'decision' in section 350(3) includes, but is not necessarily limited to, any award, order or determination of the Commission;
3. whilst the discretion is a wide one it must be exercised fairly with due regard to relevant considerations including the reason for and extent of any delay in bringing the application for reconsideration ('Schipp');
4. one of the factors to be weighed in deciding whether to exercise the discretion in favour of the moving party is the public interest that litigation should not proceed indefinitely ('Hilliger');
5. reconsideration may be allowed if new evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained at the first Arbitration is later obtained and that new evidence, if it had been put before an Arbitrator in the first hearing, would have been likely to lead to a different result ('Maksoudian');
6. given the broad power of 'review' in section 352 (which was not universally available in the Compensation Court of NSW) the reconsideration provision in section 350(3) will not usually be the preferred provision to be used to correct errors of fact, law or discretion made by Arbitrators;
7. depending on the facts of the particular case the principles enunciated by the High Court in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd  [1981] HCA 45;  (1981) 147 CLR 589 ('Anshun') may prevent a party from pursuing a claim or defence in later reconsideration proceedings if it unreasonably refrained from pursuing that claim or defence in the original proceedings ('Anshun');
8. a mistake or oversight by a legal adviser will not give rise to a ground for reconsideration ('Hurst'), and
9. the Commission has a duty to do justice between the parties according to the substantial merits of the case ('Hilliger' and section 354(3) of the 1998 Act)."[48]
10. Since Samuel, s 350 of the 1998 Act has been repealed and the reconsideration power is now to be found in s 57(1) of the PIC Act.
11. I will now turn to applying the principles applicable to reconsideration applications as enunciated in Samuel, which I find are satisfied in this matter.
12. Principle 1 is satisfied in this case, in that, it is clear that s 57(1) of the PIC Act gives the Commission a wide discretion to reconsider its previous decisions including, but not limited to, any award, order or determination of the Commission.
13. Principle 2 is satisfied in this case, in that, the Application relates to the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016.
14. Principle 3 is satisfied in this case. I accept the applicant's unchallenged evidence in respect of the deterioration of his lumbar spine condition since the time he was assessed by AMS McGroder on 27 September 2016 and since the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016. The applicant's evidence in this regard was supported by Dr Giblin. Dr Bentivoglio's diagnosis was one of persistent axial low back pain and questionably, a failed fusion, with bilateral L5 radiculopathies, weakness of toe extension and altered sensation in the L5 territory with significant decrease in back movement.
15. On 4 August 2022, the applicant lodged a recurrence of injury form, which was disputed by EML. On 14 April 2023, Dr Sergides sent a request for EML to approve an L4-S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure, which was disputed. On 5 September 2023, the Commission issued a Certificate of Determination - Consent Orders wherein it was agreed that the respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the surgical procedure proposed by Dr Sergides. I accept and find that, as a result of the deterioration of his lumbar spine condition, the applicant underwent lumbar fusion surgery on 16 November 2023 by Dr Sergides.
16. On 2 September 2024, the applicant's lawyers served Dr Giblin's report on EML and requested it to concede that the applicant's impairment had satisfied the 15% and 20% WPI thresholds. On 21 November 2024, EML responded that it did not concede the work injury damages or high needs thresholds. On 3 November 2025, EML issued a work capacity decision confirming that the applicant had no current capacity for work.
17. I find that the applicant took steps in a timely manner, in that, he had to allow for his recovery from surgery prior to being assessed for WPI by Dr Giblin. In those circumstances described in the preceding three paragraphs, I am satisfied that the delay in bringing an application for reconsideration was reasonable and does not result in any prejudice to the respondent.
18. Principle 4 has been considered and weighed in this case. The Application is sought for a specific purpose, that is, to enable the applicant to make a threshold claim. I accept the applicant's submission that the reconsideration is not sought to prolong the litigation indefinitely. The applicant is legitimately pursuing potential entitlements that have arisen in the circumstances referred to above and that are based on the opinion of Dr Giblin.
19. Principle 5 is satisfied in this case. The new evidence later obtained from the applicant regarding the deterioration of his condition; the spinal surgery that was found to be as a result of the accepted work-related injury; and the evidence of Dr Giblin, were all evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained at the time of the MAC and Certificate of Determination in 2016 because the deterioration had not yet progressed. It is evidence that, if it had been put before AMS McGroder in 2016, would have been likely to lead to a different result.
20. Principles 6, 7 and 8 are not relevant in this case.
21. Principle 9 has been considered and I am satisfied that, in rescinding the Certificate of Determination dated 14 November 2016, I have discharged my duty in doing justice between the parties according to the substantial merits of the case based on the matters I have referred to above.
22. Further, the respondent does not oppose the request for reconsideration.
23. The applicant relies on s 329(1)(b) of the 1998 Act in seeking a referral to a Medical Assessor by the Commission.
24. The operation of s 329 of the 1998 Act is not restricted to the circumstances set out in s 327(6). It is in broad unlimited terms without any need for preconditions to be satisfied before it can be used by the Commission or a court: Mansour.[49]
25. In Read, Malpass AJ made the following observations:

"26. The intended function of s329 is far from clear. It is a question that was not the subject of full argument. It may be that it affords a remedy which should have been pursued with the Commission by the plaintiff in lieu of the application for leave to appeal.

1. Also, it may be that s329 was intended to provide a remedy in cases where no grounds of appeal can be made out but the dictates of justice require a further referral for assessment."[50]
2. The respondent does not oppose the proposed referral for further assessment under s 329 of the 1998 Act.

1. The application for reconsideration relates to a deterioration in the applicant's condition that has arisen after the issuing of the MAC by AMS McGroder. There was no allegation that there was any error in the MAC. The legislation contemplates and allows for such deteriorations by providing no time restrictions in which to bring an appeal pursuant to s 327(3)(a) and (b) of the 1998 Act. I am satisfied and find that the evidence supports a deterioration in the applicant's lumbar spine condition.
2. After having examined the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that it is just to rescind the Certificate of Determination dated 16 November 2016 and remit the matter to the President for consideration of a referral back to a Medical Assessor.
3. My determination is set out in the Certificate of Determination attached to this Statement of Reasons.

[18] Application at page 21 at [7]-[8].

[19] Application at page 23 at [2]-[3].

[42] Martinovic v Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales & Ors [2019] NSWSC 1532.

[43] Samuel v Sebel Furniture Ltd [2006] NSWWCCPD 141.

[44] Target Australia Pty Ltd v Mansour [2006] NSWWCCPD 286.

[45] Miloslavjevic v Medina Property Services Pty Ltd [2008] NSWWCCPD 56.

[46] Read v Liverpool City Council [2007] NSWSC 320.

[48] Samuel v Sebel Furniture Ltd [2006] NSWWCCPD 141 at [58].

[49] Target Australia Pty Ltd v Mansour [2006] NSWWCCPD 286 at [68].

[50] Read v Liverpool City Council [2007] NSWSC 320 at [26]- [27].