Coles Myer Ltd v Rudzinski

Coles Myer Ltd appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission concerning the assessment of compensation payable to the respondent, Mr. Rudzinski. The dispute centred on whether payments for Mr. Rudzinski's children should be included in his compensation as being totally or mainly dependent on him.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Workers Compensation Commission had erred in law in its assessment of dependency. Specifically, the appeal raised the question of whether it was legally permissible for a child to be considered mainly dependent on both parents simultaneously, and whether the parents' organisation of their financial affairs was relevant to this determination in the absence of evidence of sham or fraud.

The Court of Appeal held that there was no error of law in the Commission's findings. Their Honours reasoned that a child could indeed be mainly dependent on one parent while also being mainly dependent on the other, and that the practical organisation of the parents' financial affairs was irrelevant to this assessment unless it indicated a sham or fraudulent arrangement. The appeal was therefore characterised as an attack on the Commission's findings of fact, which the Court of Appeal found no grounds to disturb.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Coles Myer Ltd was ordered to pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis.