Amin v Downer Pipe Tech Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 462

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Amin v Downer Pipe Tech Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] NSWPIC 462
APPLICANT:	Purvi Amin
RESPONDENT:	Downer Pipe Tech Pty Ltd
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	Glenn Capel
DATE OF DECISION:	8 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; death claim; determination of dependency and payment of death benefit and interest; TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris, Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd, and Wratten v Kirkpatrick & Ors discussed and applied; Held – no other dependants; orders for payment of the death benefit and agreed interest.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The deceased worker, Joseph Dominic Plateroti, died on 20 June 2023 as a result of injury sustained during the course of his employment with the first respondent. 2. Purvi Amin was partly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 3. The deceased had no other persons dependent on him. 4. The first respondent is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation and interest. The Commission orders: 5. The first respondent is to pay the applicant lump sum compensation of $891,100 pursuant to ss 25(1)(a) and 85A(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 6. The first respondent is to pay interest on the lump sum of $891,100 in the agreed sum of $30,048.37 pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The deceased worker, Joseph Dominic Plateroti, died on 20 June 2023 as a result of injury sustained during the course of his employment with Downer Pipe Tech Pty Ltd (the first respondent).
On 19 February 2024, Purvi Amin (the applicant), submitted a Notification Form in respect of a fatality to icare workers insurance.
On 19 August 2024, the first respondent’s solicitor, Mr Studdert, sought particulars and documents relevant to the claim, including details of potential dependants. On 5 February 2025 [sic], the applicant’s solicitor provided a response.
On 13 May 2025, Mr Studdert advised the applicant’s solicitor, Ms Morrell, that liability was accepted by Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd (the insurer) pursuant to ss 25 and 26 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) on 23 April 2024, subject to a determination of potential dependants.
On 30 July 2025, Mr Studdert asked Ms Morrell when she intended to file an Application. She advised that she was waiting to hear from the solicitor for the second respondent.
The applicant filed an Application in Respect of Death of Worker (the Application) that was registered in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 1 August 2025. The applicant seeks the lump sum death benefit of $891,100 in accordance with s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, interest pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), apportionment pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act, and orders authorising payment of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Amin v Downer Pipe Tech Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Amin v Downer Pipe Tech Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 462
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 462
Decision Date: 8 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Amin v Downer Pipe Tech Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers' compensation benefits following the death of the deceased, Mr Amin. The dispute centred on whether there were other dependents of Mr Amin who were eligible to receive a death benefit under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and if so, the amount of the benefit and the interest due. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, which had jurisdiction over workers' compensation claims.

The primary legal issue was whether there were other dependents of Mr Amin who were entitled to a share of the death benefit, as stipulated by the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court was required to interpret and apply relevant case law, including TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris, Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd, and Wratten v Kirkpatrick & Ors, to determine the eligibility of potential dependents and the appropriate division of the death benefit. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the interest agreed upon by the parties was correctly calculated and payable.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to assess the dependency status of potential claimants. It was determined that there were no other dependents of Mr Amin who qualified for a share of the death benefit. Consequently, the entire benefit was payable to the party claiming on behalf of Mr Amin's estate. The court found that the interest agreed upon by the parties was correctly calculated and should be paid in addition to the death benefit. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legislation and relevant case law, ensuring that the entitlements of the deceased's estate were properly determined.

The final orders of the court included the payment of the full death benefit to the claimant, along with the agreed interest. The court's decision clarified the dependency criteria under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and provided guidance on the distribution of death benefits in similar cases. The judgment reinforced the importance of accurate interpretation of the legislation and application of relevant case law in workers' compensation claims.

Orders