Abrhaim v The CJ Labour Hire Company Pty Ltd (Deregistered) [2026] NSWPIC 340

Link to decisionLink to video

Key takeaways

For s 60AA(1)(b) to be satisfied, a worker must have performed the specific domestic assistance claimed prior to the injury, even if their circumstances have changed since the injury occurred.

Brief facts

The worker sustained a lumbar spine injury on 20 August 2015 after a fall while working as a formwork labourer. Liability for the injury was accepted, and he was later assessed by an Approved Medical Specialist as having 28% Whole Person Impairment (WPI).

The worker had three children. He alleged that due to ongoing back pain he was unable to drive for long periods and safely get his children in and out of the car. He requested funding for transportation of his children to and from school and daycare, as well as after-school activities such as sport and swimming lessons.

Liability for the claimed domestic assistance was disputed by the insurer, GIO, due to insufficient information and because the worker did not provide the assistance himself prior to his injury, as required by s 60AA(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Judgment

Member Seaton determined that although the requested transport assistance was reasonable, it did not satisfy all of the statutory requirements set out in s 60AA(1).

Section 60AA(1) sets out the following criteria for ongoing domestic assistance to be compensable:

• A medical practitioner has certified, based on a functional assessment, it is reasonably necessary* as a result of injury.
• He assistance would not be needed ‘but for the injury’ (because the worker provided the assistance before the injury).
• The injury has resulted in at least 15% WPI.
• The assistance is provided in accordance with a care plan established by the insurer.

The Member accepted that the worker’s lumbar spine injury prevented him from safely transporting his children to and from school, daycare and other activities. The medical evidence demonstrated that the worker experienced significant pain with prolonged driving and had difficulty lifting his children in and out of the car. The Member therefore accepted that the claimed domestic assistance was reasonably necessary.

The Member also noted that the worker exceeded the required 15% WPI threshold to be eligible for ongoing domestic assistance under s 60AA(1)(c). While there was no evidence of a formal care plan established by the insurer, Member Seaton found that reports by the worker’s occupational therapist were sufficient to satisfy the requirement in s 60AA(1)(d).

The worker’s claim, however, failed as it could not be established that he provided the assistance himself before the injury, in accordance with s 60AA(1)(b). The worker argued that his children had not actually been born at the time of his injury, but had he not been injured, he would now be transporting them to school, daycare and their other activities himself.

The worker submitted it was unreasonable to interpret s 60AA(1)(b) literally and suggested a more sensible interpretation would be to consider whether driving services more broadly were undertaken by the worker prior to his injury.

While Member Seaton acknowledged that on a practical level the worker’s argument was compelling, the wording of the legislation was clear. Because the worker did not transport his children himself before the injury (because they were not born) the worker could not meet the requirement in s 60AA(1)(b).

The Member confirmed that while the term ‘domestic assistance’ could encompass transportation of children to and from school and other activities, s 60AA(1)(b) was not met. The worker was therefore unsuccessful in his claim and the Member entered an Award for the Respondent.

Implications

This decision serves as a good reminder of the requirements under s 60AA(1) pertaining to domestic assistance claims. Section 60AA(1) is interpreted strictly and every statutory requirement must be satisfied.

Where a worker’s circumstances change after an injury, it may be difficult for them to establish the requirement in s 60AA(1)(b).

Respondents and insurers should carefully examine each claim for domestic assistance and question whether all requirements of s 60AA(1) are met, including whether the worker performed the domestic assistance themselves prior to the injury.

*As at 1 July 2026, ‘reasonably necessary’ is replaced by ‘reasonable and necessary’ wherever occurring in s 60AA(1) per the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2025.