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

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 Downer Pipe Tech Pty Ltd (the first respondent).

2. On 19 February 2024,  Purvi Amin (the applicant), submitted a Notification Form in respect of a fatality to icare workers insurance.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 lump sums pursuant to s 85A of the 1987 Act.

7. The deceased’s former spouse, Erica Rizzotto, is the second respondent.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

1. At the preliminary conference, the nature of the dispute was clarified. I was informed that at the time of the deceased’s death, the applicant was in employment.

2. I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. The parties were advised of the intention to determine the dispute without holding a conciliation conference or arbitration hearing.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. The following issues remain in dispute:

   (a) whether there were any persons wholly or partially dependent on the deceased – s 25 of the 1987 Act;

   (b)    orders in respect of apportionment of the lump sum death benefit – s 29 of the 1987 Act, and

   (a) orders in relation to payment of the compensation and interest – ss 25 (1A) and 85A(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, and s 109 of the 1998 Act.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

1. The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and taken into account in making this determination:

   (a)    Application and attached documents;

   (b)    first respondent’s Reply with attachments, and

   (c)    second respondent’s reply.

Oral evidence

1. The parties did not seek leave to adduce oral evidence or cross examine any witnesses.

REVIEW OF EVIDENCE

Statutory declaration of Purvi Amin

1. The applicant, the defacto partner of the deceased, provided a statutory declaration on
   12 July 2024. She confirmed that the deceased was married to the second respondent, but they divorced. He was an only child and his only surviving relatives were his parents.

2. The applicant stated that she met the deceased, and she moved into his one-bedroom apartment in May 2021. As they had planned to purchase a home, they moved into her parents’ house. This allowed them to care for her parents.

3. The applicant stated that they held a common bank account. The deceased paid the rent, and she paid for the groceries. Other household expenses were shared.

4. The applicant stated that they had plans for the future and the deceased planned to propose to her in May 2023, but their engagement was postponed to November 2023.They had planned to start a family by November 2024.

5. The applicant indicated that they attended dinners with each other’s families and also attended family functions. They had planned a holiday to India as they wanted to have a wedding with an Indian influence.

6. The applicant advised that the first respondent had paid for funeral and transportation expenses. She concluded that she was financially and emotionally dependent on the deceased at the time of his death.

Statutory declaration of Suzanna Plateroti and Dominic Plateroti

1. Suzanna Plateroti and Dominic Plateroti, the parents of the deceased, provided a joint statutory declaration on 22 February 2024. They confirmed that the applicant and their son had been in a committed relationship since May 2021, and they had intended to marry and start a family. They advised that there were no other persons entitled to make a claim on the death benefit.

2. A further statutory declaration was completed on 2 August 2024. This refers to an email annexure, but this document is not in evidence.

Statutory declaration of Erica Rizzotto

1. Erica Rizzotto, the deceased’s former spouse, provided a statutory declaration on
   27 August 2025. She confirmed that she married the deceased on 14 November 2015, separated in or about 2018 and the divorce was granted on or about 26 June 2020. They had no children, and they did not maintain contact afterwards.

2. Ms Rizzotto confirmed that she was not dependent on the deceased for financial support and care. She had sought independent legal advice, and she did not wish to make a claim for the death benefit.

Documents

1. Copies of the deceased’s death certificate, divorce orders from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dated 26 June 2020 and documents from the Coroner’s Court of Western Australia are in evidence. These documents are consistent with applicant’s statutory declaration.

SUBMISSIONS

1. Given that the non-contentious nature of the dispute, I saw no need for the parties to make submissions.

REASONS

Dependency

1. It was confirmed in Warilla Timber and Hardware Pty Ltd v Newton,[1] Albury Real Estate Pty Ltd v Rouseand anor[2] and in Richardson that the term “support” in s 25 of the 1987 Act is not limited to financial support and encompasses other multifactorial aspects including assistance with day to day activities and emotional support.

   [1] (1995) 11 NSWCCR 546, [554] to [555].

   [2] [2006] NSWWCCPD 139, [45] to [50].

2. In TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris,[3] McHugh JA stated:

   “Dependency is a question of fact: Potts v Niddre & Benhar Coal Co Ltd [1913] AC 531 at 539, 542; Aafjes v Kearney (1976) 50 ALJR 454 at 456, 457 and 459. It is concerned with actual and not theoretical support. A person claiming dependency need not be in actual receipt of support at the date of death. It is enough that, as at that date, he or she had a reasonable expectation of support in the future. Dependency may exist at the date of death although actual support cannot or is unlikely to occur until a future time.”[4]

   [3] (1987) 3 NSWCCR 10; 8 NSWLR 486 (Halioris).

   [4] Halioris, [489].

3. Further, in Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd,[5] President Keating stated:

   “The question whether there is in fact dependence or reliance at the date of death is not to be answered by looking only to the circumstances as they existed at that date;”[6]

   and

   “‘past events and future probabilities’ have to be considered. (Aafjes v Kearney 180

   CLR 199; 8 ALR 455; 50 ALJR 454, 456, 457 and 459 (Aafjes)).”[7]

   [5] [2011] NSWCCPD 6 (Kaur).

   [6] Kaur, [126].

   [7] Kaur, [148].

4. The applicant and the deceased were in a committed and loving relationship. They resided together, and presumably the deceased’s income was used for living and household expenses.

5. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the evidence shows that the applicant was partly dependent on the deceased at the time of his death.

6. According to the statutory declarations of the deceased’s parents and his former wife, they were  not dependent on the deceased at the time of his death. Therefore, I am satisfied that there were no other persons wholly or partly dependent on the deceased at the date of his death.

Interest

1. The parties have reached agreement as to quantum of interest in the sum of $30,048.37.

FINDINGS

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.

ORDERS

1. 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 1987 Act.

2. 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 1998 Act.