Win for Workers: Recent Personal Injury Commission Presidential Decision Regarding Classification of a ‘Worker’

Taylor O'Connor & Emma Thomson

24/02/2026

Win for Workers: Recent Personal Injury Commission Presidential Decision Regarding Classification of a ‘Worker’

A recent NSW Personal Injury Commission Presidential decision is making waves across the legal and business communities. In Tsakiris v Active Pools and Spas Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICPD 1, the Commission has delivered a clear message being that the true nature of an employment relationship is determined by substance, not just labels or paperwork.

Background of Case

Jordan Tsakiris, an experienced pool builder, was approached by a former colleague to help out for a day on a residential pool project for Active Pools and Spas Pty Ltd. The arrangement was informal, no written contract, no invoice, and payment in cash at the end of the day. Unfortunately, during the job, Mr Tsakiris suffered severe chemical burns from falling concrete, leading to months off work, significant medical treatment, and ongoing pain.

When Mr Tsakiris sought workers compensation, the insurer denied his claim, arguing he was not a “worker” under section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) but instead an independent contractor. The initial Commission member agreed, but Mr Tsakiris appealed and won.

Why This Decision Matters

Deputy President Adam Searle’s decision is a must-read for anyone involved in hiring, contracting, or working in NSW, especially in industries where short-term or casual work is common.

Here’s what makes this case so important:

Substance Over Form: The Real Test for Employment The Commission made it clear: it’s not about what you call the relationship, or whether someone has an ABN, or even if they usually work as a contractor. What matters is the actual agreement and how the work is performed. Control and Direction: Mr Tsakiris worked under the direct supervision of Active Pools’ director, used their tools, and followed their instructions throughout the day. Integration: He was brought in to help complete the company’s job, not to run his own business on the side. No Invoice, No Quote: Unlike his usual contracting work, Mr Tsakiris didn’t quote for the job or issue an invoice, he simply turned up, did the work as directed, and was paid cash.
Even One Day Can Make You a Worker A key takeaway is that even a single day’s work can create an employment relationship. The Commission found that Mr Tsakiris was a casual employee for that day, entitled to benefits under the workers compensation scheme.
Moving Beyond the ‘Checklist’ Approach The decision follows recent High Court rulings, moving away from the old “multifactorial” checklist of employment. Instead, the focus is on the actual contract (written or oral) and the rights and obligations it creates.
Onus of Proof and Missing Evidence The case also highlights the importance of evidence. The employer failed to provide key witnesses or documents that could have supported their version of events. The Commission stated that when a party doesn’t call evidence that’s within their power to provide, it can count against them.

What Does This Mean for Businesses and Workers?

For Employers: You can’t avoid employment obligations just by paying cash, using ABNs, or calling someone a contractor. If you control how, when, and where someone works, and they’re integrated into your business even for a day, they may well be your employee.
For Workers: If you’re injured while working under someone’s direction, you may be entitled to compensation, even if the arrangement was informal or short-term.
For Insurers and Legal Practitioners: This case is a reminder to look closely at the facts and the real nature of the working relationship, not just the paperwork.

If you are injured at work and you are unsure whether you would be eligible to make a workers compensation claim, contact Foye Legal and we can arrange a confidential consultation.