Blacktown Women and Girls Health Centre Incorporated v Vieira
[2023] NSWPIC 616
•16 November 2023
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Blacktown Women and Girls Health Centre Incorporated v Vieira & Ors [2023] NSWPIC 616 |
| APPLICANT: | Blacktown Women and Girls Health Centre Incorporated |
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Manuel Viera |
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Paul Sparks |
| THIRD RESPONDENT: | Anthony Leo Sparks |
| FOURTH RESPONDENT: FIFTH RESPONDENT: | Jordan Alexander Sparks Vivien Killick as tutor of Oliver Riley Sparks |
| PRINCIPAL MEMBER: | Glenn Capel |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 16 November 2023 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Death claim; determination of dependency, apportionment, and payment of death benefit, interest and management fee; TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris, Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd, and Wratten v Kirkpatrick & Ors discussed and applied; Held – death benefit and agreed interest apportioned and orders for payment. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | The Commission determines: 1. The name of the fifth respondent is amended to Vivien Killick as tutor of Oliver Riley Sparks. 2. The deceased worker, Sharon Louise Labbett, died on 10 November 2022 as a result of injuries sustained during the course of her employment with the applicant on 3. Manuel Viera, Paul Sparks, Anthony Leo Sparks and Jordan Alexander Sparks were partly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 4. Oliver Riley Sparks was wholly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 5. The deceased had no other persons dependent on her. 6. The applicant is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation, interest and the management fee. 7. The lump sum compensation of $871,200 payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 is to be apportioned in accordance with s 29 of the of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as follows: (a) Manuel Viera – $161,172 (18.5%); (b) Paul Sparks – $100,188 (11.5%); (c) Anthony Leo Sparks – $174,240 (20%); (d) Jordan Alexander Sparks – $196,020 (22.5%), and (e) Oliver Riley Sparks – $239,580 (27.5%). 8. The applicant to pay interest on the lump sum of $871,200 as agreed pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 as follows: (a) Manuel Viera – $2,486.91; (b) Paul Sparks – $3,833.36; (c) Anthony Leo Sparks – $2,863.26; (d) Jordan Alexander Sparks – $2,860.82, and (e) Oliver Riley Sparks – $3,936.99. 9. The applicant to pay a management fee of $17,990.68 pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and cl 177 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016. The Commission orders: 10. The applicant to pay the first respondent $163,658.91 pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 11. The applicant to pay the second respondent $104,021.36 pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 12. The applicant to pay the third respondent $177,103.26 pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 13. The applicant to pay the fourth respondent $198,880.82 pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 14. The applicant to pay $261,507.67 to the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian pursuant to ss 25(1A) and 85(1)(c) of the Workers Compensation Act1987, s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and cl 177 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 to hold on trust until Oliver Riley Sparks attains the age of 18 years. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
The deceased worker, Sharon Louise Labbett, died on 10 November 2022 as a result of injuries sustained during the course of her employment with Blacktown Women and Girls Health Centre Incorporated (the applicant) on 7 November 2022.
On 28 March 2023, the solicitor for Paul Sparks (the second respondent) sent an email to Employers Mutual Ltd (the insurer) and questioned why liability had not yet been determined. The insurer was put on notice of a claim for interest and a copy of a statutory declaration was served. Similar correspondence was forwarded to the solicitors of the other potential dependants.
On 7 June 2023, the applicant’s solicitor, Mr Harris, sent an email to the solicitors for five potential dependants, seeking particulars of any dependants and documentary evidence in respect of the claim for dependency.
On 8 June 2023, the second respondent’s solicitor advised that she did not hold any of the information sought by the applicant and directed him to her email dated 28 March 2023.
On 14 June 2023, the solicitor for Anthony Sparks (the third respondent) provided a partial response to the request for particulars. No statement was provided.
On 7 August 2023, the solicitor for Vivien Killick as tutor of Oliver Riley Sparks (the fifth respondent) provided a partial response to the request for particulars. No statement was provided.
Liability was accepted by the insurer pursuant to ss 25 and 26 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act) on 9 August 2023, subject to a determination of potential dependants. In a letter dated 9 August 2023, Mr Harris requested a reply to his request for particulars and confirmation whether the deceased’s parents had been contacted.
On 10 August 2023, the solicitor for the second respondent provided a partial response to the request for particulars and included correspondence from the deceased’s parents.
On 16 August 2023, the solicitor for Manuel Viera (the first respondent) served a copy of a statement from her client.
On 21 August 2023, the solicitor for Jordan Sparks (the fourth respondent) served a copy of a statement from her client.
The applicant filed an Application in Respect of Death of Worker (the Application) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 14 September 2023, seeking payment of the lump sum death benefit of $871,200 in accordance with s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, apportionment of the benefit in accordance with s 29 of the 1987 Act and an order authorising payment of the lump sum pursuant to ss 85(1)(c) and 85A(1)(a) of the 1987 Act.
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
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.
At the preliminary conference on 15 November 2023, after discussing the matter and with the benefit of my preliminary view, I was informed that the parties had reached agreement as to a proposed apportionment as follows:
(a) Manuel Viera – $161,172 (18.5%);
(b) Paul Sparks – $100,188 (11.5%);
(c) Anthony Leo Sparks – $174,240 (20%);
(d) Jordan Alexander Sparks – $196,020 (22.5%), and
(e) Oliver Riley Sparks – $239,580 (27.5%).
I was also informed that the parties had also reached agreement regarding interest.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The parties agree that 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) apportionment of the lump sum of $871,200 payable – s 29 of the 1987 Act, and
(c) orders in relation to payment of the compensation, interest and the management fee – ss 25 (1A), 85(1)(c) and 85A(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, s 109 of the 1998 Act and cl 177 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 (the 2016 Regulation).
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
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;
(c) Second Respondent’s Reply with attachments;
(d) Third Respondent’s Reply with attachments;
(e) Fourth Respondent’s Reply with attachments;
(f) Fifth Respondent’s Reply with attachments, and
(g) Application to Admit Late Documents received on 10 October 2023.
Oral evidence
Neither party sought leave to adduce oral evidence or cross examine any witnesses.
REVIEW OF EVIDENCE
Statement of Manuel Viera
Manuel Viera provided a statement on 14 August 2023. He advised that he met the deceased in 2019 after she had divorced her husband. The deceased had three sons and she shared parental responsibilities with her former husband. They stayed with the deceased every second weekend and she drove the youngest son to school every day. She lived with her eldest son in rental accommodation.
Mr Viera stated that he became romantically involved with the deceased and they started spending more time as a couple during the week. She spent most of her time at his house, but still helped her son with the rental payments.
Mr Viera stated that he suffered a cardiac arrest and a hypoxic brain injury in February 2021. When he was discharged from hospital in July 2021, he was forced to close his business and was accepted onto the NDIS program. The deceased supported his recovery at home and he was dependant for her help, care, support and emotional assistance and companionship. She would organise medical appointments, ensure that he was taking his medication, help him with texts and letters and shop for groceries if the NDIS carer had not purchased an item. He paid for the home utilities and bills, whilst whoever did the shopping would pay for the groceries or takeaway food.
Mr Viera stated that the deceased’s sons would visit and the fourth respondent would have dinner on occasions. The fifth respondent used to stay more frequently on the allocated weekends. The third respondent would also come over occasionally, but less frequently.
Mr Viera advised that he dealt with the initial calls from the police telling and he made sure that her sons and other family members were notified. He has had minimal to no contact with the family since she died. He was still receiving her hospital and telephone bills.
The first respondent has attached various documents that corroborate what he indicated in his statement.
Statement of Leslie Gault
Leslie Gault provided a statement on 10 October 2023. She advised that she knew the deceased well through the school. They would often meet socially for coffee, lunch or a chat. She confirmed that the deceased had moved out of the family home and lived in rented accommodation following the divorce and she shared parental responsibilities with the second respondent. She took them to school each day and spent time with them every second weekend.
Ms Gault advised that the deceased became romantically involved with the first respondent. As their relationship progressed, she spent more time at the first respondent’s home, and they would often invite her and her husband to the house for dinner. She believed that they were happy together, as shown in the attached Facebook profile posts and photographs.
Ms Gault satted that the deceased spent a lot of time in hospital whilst the first respondent recovered from his cardiac arrest that left him with cognitive and physical difficulties and impairments. After he was discharged, the deceased provided a lot of assistance, coordinated his care with the other carers and organised his medical schedule.
Statutory declaration of Paul Sparks
Paul Sparks provided a statutory declaration on 28 March 2023. He indicated that he started a relationship with the deceased and they bought a house together in 1994. Her eldest son from a previous relationship was 11 months old and the second respondent took on parental responsibilities. They had two sons, separated in 2019 and divorced in 2020. Their two sons lived with him, split the assets 70/30, and he took care of the mortgage, the boys and their school fees. The deceased was free to see them whenever she wished. She would spend time with them every fortnight and drove the fifth respondent to school every morning.
The second respondent stated that they remained amicable following their divorce. They would discuss medical problems and issues with the boys, would attend school conferences and presentation nights together. They saw each other daily and would chat generally and also about the boys. If he ever needed her to take care of the boys, or if he was stuck at work, he knew that she would help. He supported the boys when the deceased died.
The second respondent stated that he had taken on additional parental responsibilities to look after the boys. He paid for a family memorial and the funeral costs. He was not aware of the existence of the first respondent until after the deceased had died.
Statements of Anthony Sparks
Anthony Sparks provided a statement on 26 June 2023. He stated that his parents separated when he was a young child and he lived with the deceased. His mother married the second respondent and they split up in about 2017 or 2018. He then lived with his mother at a house in Cranebrook, where he still resides. The deceased moved into two shared houses in early 2021.
The third respondent stated that his mother was in a sexual relationship with the first respondent who he had met on a few occasions at his home. His mother was told that the first respondent would not be discharged from hospital unless there was someone there to help him, so in mid-2021 the deceased moved into his house to provide care for him.
The third respondent stated that based on what his mother had told him, she was not in a defacto relationship, but they were living under the one roof and had a sexual relationship. The first respondent was in receipt of a disability pension and the deceased told him that a defacto relationship was not declared. He claimed that the deceased had told him that she did not consider herself to be in a de facto relationship on several occasions in the months prior to her death. She found the care requirements very draining and she was intending to move out of his house and go back to Cranebrook.
The third respondent stated had regular contact with the deceased every week or two depending upon how busy they were. They would often eat takeaway at his place or go to a restaurant or the pub. His mother would always pay the bill. He would call or text her regularly, and she helped him financially over the years. She would pay his rent and lend him funds when he was short of money, and she would regularly buy groceries for him. When she visited, she would bring groceries and when he did not have a car, she would pick him up and take him to places where he needed to go. He was very dependent upon her for emotional support.
The third respondent indicated that as far as he was aware, the only dependants were the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents. He was aware of the first respondent’s claim and confirmed that the deceased’s parents were not dependent on her. His mother had left no will and he was seeking to be appointed as the Administrator of the Estate.
In a statement dated 12 September 2023, the third respondent largely confirmed the contents of his statement after reviewing the first respondent’s statement. He advised that the deceased had told him that she did not live at the first respondent’s house on a full-time basis and only had some clothes there. She was living at a house in Oxley Park.
The third respondent stated that the deceased did not have a memorial or funeral service in accordance with her and the family’s wishes. He collected her belongings and personal items that he could give to charity from the first respondent and he denied that he said to throw items away.
Statement of Jordan Sparks
Jordan Sparks provided a statement on 21 August 2023. He stated that he had been employed on a permanent part-time basis since he completed a TAFE course in 2021. He advised that he had minimal contact with his maternal grandparents and uncle. He had lived in the family home for his entire life. He and his younger brother spent every second weekend with her until he became busy with his job.
The fourth respondent stated that he had a good relationship with the deceased. They watched movies and TV together and he would seek her advice, support or help when he needed it. She also had a good relationship with his father and brothers. Her death had badly affected him and he had not really been coping with what happened and her loss.
The fourth respondent stated that he did not know the first respondent very well, but he had met him several times. He seemed like a good bloke and they seemed happy together. He thought that they had been together for about a year. They lived at the first respondent’s house and as far as he knew, they were in a relationship. He confirmed that the first respondent had wanted a service in a church, but the rest wanted an informal arrangement.
Statement of Oliver Sparks
Oliver Sparks provided a statement with the assistance of Vivien Killick, his maternal grand aunt, on 9 August 2023. He confirmed that he is currently in year 10 at high school, planned to complete his HSC in 2025 and intended to enrol in a computer science degree at university.
The fifth respondent stated that he had a very close relationship with his mother. They talked a lot and were always laughing and joking. They would watch movies and have breakfast together. She would prepare meals did his washing and ironing and helped him clean his room. She bought him things such as season tickets to Western Sydney Zoo. She would take him to and from school every day and they discussed how he was going at school and his homework and assignments. She drove him to his youth group and to places where he wanted to go.
The fifth respondent stated that he was saddened by his mother’s death. He has trouble sleeping and ruminates about her death. he has not been as motivated with his school work. He misses the school rides, their discussions, the birthday gifts and dinners. Christmas and Easter have been hit hard. It was hard to decide his school elective subjects without his mother’s input and she will not be there for many milestones.
Email of Robert and Pauline Labbett
The first respondent’s solicitor wrote to the deceased’s parents, on 17 March 2023, informing them to seek legal advice regarding a potential; claim on the death benefit. On
18 March 2023, Mr Labbett sent an email and confirmed that they would not be pursuing a claim.
SUBMISSIONS
No submissions were made by the parties. I had given a preliminary view at the preliminary conference and the proposed apportionment was consistent with my comments. I am satisfied that the parties have considered their respective rights.
REASONS
Dependency
In TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris (1987) 3 NSWCCR 10; 8 NSWLR 486, McHugh JA stated (at [489]):
“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.”
Further, in Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCCPD 6 (at [126] and [148]), President Keating stated (at [126]):
“126. 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; ‘past events and future probabilities’ have to be considered. (Aafjes v Kearney 180 CLR 199; [1976] HCA 5; 8 ALR 455; 50 ALJR 454, 456, 457 and 459 (Aafjes)).”
According to the first respondent, he was dependent on the deceased for the help, care and assistance that he needed after his cardiac arrest. She looked after his needs and they shared expenses when they were together. They were in a relationship and were romantically involved.
This evidence has been challenged by the third respondent who claimed that the deceased had told him that the relationship was only sexual in nature and she was caring for him because he would not have been discharged from hospital.
There is nothing to corroborate the third respondent’s evidence and it seems contrary to the weight of the other evidence. I prefer his evidence and that of Ms Gault and the two youngest sons over the evidence of the third respondent regarding the de facto nature of the first respondent’s relationship.
Given that the first respondent had a carer and was in receipt of a disability pension, I accept that he was at least partly dependent on the deceased at the date of her death for emotional and financial support.
The second respondent shared parental responsibilities with the deceased. They had maintained a good relationship following their divorce. Since her death, he is now the sole parent of the two biological children. Whilst the degree of dependence on the deceased was not substantial, there was still a degree of support so I am satisfied that he was partly dependent on the deceased at the time of her death for emotional support and sharing of parental duties.
The third respondent was working and living apart from his mother when she died. He indicated that his mother would pay for some groceries and dinner and she helped him financially over the years, although precise details were not provided apart from reference to rent payment and loans when funds were low. He was dependent upon her for emotional support as well as occasional financial support. I accept that he was partly dependent on the deceased at the time of her death.
The fourth respondent indicated that he had a good relationship with his mother. He did not mention any financial support but he relied on her emotional support. I accept that he was partly dependent on the deceased at the time of her death.
Finally, the fifth respondent indicated that he had a very close relationship with his mother as one might expect. It is apparent that she provided both emotional and financial support to her son. She drove him to and from school each day and kept abreast of his school and other activities. The loss of a parent at such an early game must have been devastating for him as the youngest of the family. Given that he is now only in year 10, I accept that he was wholly dependent for emotional and financial support on both of his parents.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the first, second, third and fourth respondents were partly dependant on the deceased, and the fifth respondent was wholly dependent on his late mother at the time of her untimely death.
Further, I am satisfied that there were no other persons wholly or partly dependent on him at the date of death.
Apportionment
In order to apportion the lump sum, it is necessary to review all of the relevant facts disclosed in the evidence. In Wratten v Kirkpatrick,[1] Egan A-CCJ stated:
“The exercise of power to determine the correct amount to be apportioned to each dependant requires an examination of all relevant facts including the extent of past dependence, the anticipated future dependence, the ages of the dependants, their health, special needs, lifestyle, etc.”[2]
[1] (1996) 15 NSWCCR 32 (Wratten).
[2] Wratten, [34].
Each case requires an examination of the individual facts as no two matters are identical. The parties came to a preliminary agreement in relation to apportionment of the lump sum death benefit and this was confirmed by the legal preservatives during the conference.
The first respondent would have had an expectation of ongoing support from the deceased but for her death. The deceased might only have been his de facto, but she was his carer and helped him both emotionally and financially. He is now in his 60s and in ill health, so his future expectations would not be as high as the younger dependants.
The second respondent was sharing parental responsibility and there is some emotional support, but these will lessen as the family grows older. He is in his late 50s so his future expectations would not be significant and would in my view diminish once the fifth respondent completes his tertiary education. His entitlement would justify the least amount.
The third respondent was assisted by his mother from time to time with groceries and loans as one might expect from a loving parent, but he is an adult in his mid-30s, so his expectations should not be as high as those of his younger brothers. His entitlement would exceed that of the first and second respondents.
The fourth respondent’s expectations would be somewhat similar, but given that he is in his 20s, his expectations for the future would exceed that of the third respondent.
In my view, the fifth respondent would have the most significant expectation. Whilst he was only seeing his mother every fortnight, she was the person he turned to for advice and help. He was still in high school and will not conclude his HSC until 2025. He intends to go to university and presumably both his parents would have assisted him but for his mother’s death. Given his tender years and plans for the future, his expectation would be greater than that of the other respondents.
Having regard to the totality of the evidence, the appointment suggested by the parties is in my view appropriate and properly reflects their respective expectations and entitlements.
Accordingly the lump sum benefit of $871,200 will be apportioned as follows:
(a) Manuel Viera – $161,172 (18.5%);
(b) Paul Sparks – $100,188 (11.5%);
(c) Anthony Leo Sparks – $174,240 (20%);
(d) Jordan Alexander Sparks – $196,020 (22.5%), and
(e) Oliver Riley Sparks – $239,580 (27.5%).
Interest
The parties have reached agreement as to quantum of interest calculated at the rates of 5.6% per annum from 28 March 2023 to 2 May 2023, 5.85% per annum from 3 May 2023 to 6 June 2023, 6.1 % per annum from 7 June 2023 to 7 November 2023 and 6.35% per annum from 7 November 2023 to 16 November 2023 as follows:
(a) Manuel Viera – $2,486.91;
(b) Paul Sparks – $3,833.36;
(c) Anthony Leo Sparks – $2,863.26;
(d) Jordan Alexander Sparks – $2,860.82, and
(e) Oliver Riley Sparks – $3,936.99.
Management Fee
Section 25(1A) of the 1987 Act provides that where a lump sum death benefit is paid to the NSW Trustee for the benefit of a dependant in accordance with s 85 of the 1987 Act, the employer must pay additional compensation fees for management of the funds by the NSW Trustee as prescribed by the regulations.
Clause 177 of the 2016 Regulation contains a prescribed formula for the calculation. Relevantly, it provides:
“177 Lump sum death benefit—additional compensation fees
For the 1987 Act, section 25(1A), the fee calculated in accordance with the following formula is prescribed—
A + ((F x B) + C) + (D x E) + (F x G) = Fee
Where—
A is $1,309.
B is the amount specified in Table 1, Column 2 that corresponds to the lump sum death benefit, including interest, payable to the dependant specified in Table 1, Column 1.
C is the amount specified in Table 1, Column 3 that corresponds to the lump sum death benefit, including interest, payable to the dependant specified in Table 1, Column 1.
D is $917.82.
E is the amount specified in Table 2, Column 2 that corresponds to the age of the dependant specified in Table 2, Column 1.
F is the lump sum death benefit, including interest, payable to the dependant.
G is the amount specified in Table 2, Column 3 that corresponds to the age of the dependant specified in Table 2, Column 1…
Table 1
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
$200,000 to $300,000 0.0165 3,300
Table 2
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Age (years)
15 2.72 0.0282 …”
The SIRA website contains a lump sum benefit additional fees calculator which simplifies the calculation. According to the calculator, and confirmed by the applicant’s solicitor, the additional fees payable by the applicant to the NSW Trustee and Guardian are $17,990.68.
I propose to make orders in accordance with the above calculations.
FINDINGS
The deceased worker, Sharon Louise Labbett, died on 10 November 2022 as a result of injuries sustained during the course of her employment with the applicant on
7 November 2022.Manuel Viera, Paul Sparks, Anthony Leo Sparks and Jordan Alexander Sparks were partly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death.
Oliver Riley Sparks was wholly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death.
The deceased had no other persons dependent on her.
The applicant is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation, interest and the management fee.
The lump sum compensation of $871,200 payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act is to be apportioned in accordance with s 29 of the of the 1987 Act as follows:
(a) Manuel Viera – $161,172 (18.5%);
(b) Paul Sparks – $100,188 (11.5%);
(c) Anthony Leo Sparks – $174,240 (20%);
(d) Jordan Alexander Sparks – $196,020 (22.5%), and
(e) Oliver Riley Sparks – $239,580 (27.5%).
The applicant to pay interest on the lump sum of $871,200 as agreed pursuant to s 109 of the 1998 Act is as follows:
(a) Manuel Viera – $2,486.91;
(b) Paul Sparks – $3,833.36;
(c) Anthony Leo Sparks – $2,863.26;
(d) Jordan Alexander Sparks – $2,860.82, and
(e) Oliver Riley Sparks – $3,936.99.
The applicant to pay a management fee of $17,990.68 pursuant to s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act and cl 177 of the 2016 Regulation.
ORDERS
The applicant to pay the first respondent $163,658.91 pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) of the 1987 Act and s 109 of the 1998 Act.
The applicant to pay the second respondent $104,021.36 pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) of the 1987 Act and s 109 of the 1998 Act.
The applicant to pay the third respondent $177,103.26 pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) of the 1987 Act and s 109 of the 1998 Act.
The applicant to pay the fourth respondent $198,880.82 pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) of the 1987 Act and s 109 of the 1998 Act.
The applicant to pay $261,507.67 to the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian pursuant to ss 25(1A) and 85(1)(c) of the of the 1987 Act, s 109 of the 1998 Act and cl 177 of the 2016 Regulation to hold on trust until the fifth respondent, Oliver Riley Sparks, attains the age of 18 years.
0
2
0