Delta Services Pty Ltd v BBV - [2022] NSWPIC 649

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Delta Services Pty Ltd v BBV & Ors [2022] NSWPIC 649
APPLICANT:	Delta Services Pty Ltd
first RESPONDENT:	BBV
second respondent:	BGC
third respondent:	BIA
fourth respondent:	BJB
SENIOR Member:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	23 November 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for interest on lump sum death benefit pursuant to section 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; claim opposed by applicant; orders for apportionment of lump sum and direction for written submissions on issue of interest made at preliminary conference; consideration of Haidary v Wandella Pet Foods Pty Ltd, Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd and Kathryn Ann Kratz as executrix of the estate of the late Owen Beddall v Qantas Airways Limited; Held – no order for interest.
determinations made:	1. That there is no order for interest.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The worker, BKC, died on 24 March 2022 as a result of injuries arising out of or in the course of her employment with the applicant, Delta Services Pty Ltd.
The first, second, third and fourth respondents are, respectively, the partner of the worker, and the children of the relationship.

Findings and orders have previously been made in respect of apportionment of the lump sum death benefit payable pursuant to s 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), in Matter Number [2022] NSWPIC 551. The worker and the respondents were anonymised in that determination and are similarly anonymised in this determination.
Directions were made in Matter Number [2022] NSWPIC 551 for the filing and service of submissions in respect of the claim for interest on the lump sum, which is being determined separately, so as not to further delay payment of the lump sum.
By email dated 19 May 2022, the solicitors for the first respondent served on iCare Workers Insurance (iCare) the claim form; his authority to release information; the worker’s death certificate; the birth certificates of the second and fourth respondents; and an authority to iCare. They advised that the first respondent was not in receipt of the third respondent’s birth certificate, which would be obtained and provided in due course. They asked that receipt of the claim form be acknowledged, and they be advised whether any further information was requested.
By email dated 5 July 2022, the solicitors for the applicant requested that the first respondent’s solicitors provide a copy of BIA’s birth certificate, or, if not held, details of her date of birth, and, if held, a copy of the police report.
By letter dated 6 July 2022, the first respondent’s solicitors replied that he could not locate BIA’s birth certificate and would need to request a copy from Births, Deaths and Marriages. A copy would be provided once it was received. BIA’s date of birth was provided. The solicitors did not have a copy of the police report but undertook to provide it should it be received. Information about a post-mortem was also…

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 Delta Services Pty Ltd v BBV

Details

AGLC: Delta Services Pty Ltd v BBV [2022] NSWPIC 649
Case: [2022] NSWPIC 649
Decision Date: 23 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Delta Services Pty Ltd, the insurer, appealed against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which had awarded a lump sum death benefit to the estate of a deceased worker. The dispute centred on the insurer's refusal to pay interest on the lump sum as mandated by section 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issue was whether the insurer was obligated to pay interest on the lump sum death benefit. The insurer argued that it was not liable for interest, while the estate contended that the statutory provision clearly mandated such interest. The tribunal had to determine the correct interpretation and application of section 109 in the context of the case, considering relevant case law and statutory provisions.

The tribunal examined the statutory language of section 109 and relevant case law, including Haidary v Wandella Pet Foods Pty Ltd, Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd, and Kathryn Ann Kratz as executrix of the estate of the late Owen Beddall v Qantas Airways Limited. The tribunal concluded that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, requiring the payment of interest. However, the tribunal also considered the broader statutory scheme and the intent behind the legislation, ultimately deciding that the plain language did not support an obligation for interest in the context of the case. The tribunal ordered that the lump sum be apportioned and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the issue of interest at a preliminary conference.

The tribunal ultimately determined that no interest should be paid on the lump sum death benefit, dismissing the estate's claim for interest. The tribunal ordered that the lump sum be apportioned as per the directions given, and the matter would proceed to a preliminary conference for further consideration of the issue of interest.

Orders