Gleeson v Cartoscope Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 317

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Gleeson v Cartoscope Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 317
APPLICANT:	Lisa Dorothy Gleeson
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Cartoscope Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Sophie Morgan Gleeson
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Georgia Claire Gleeson
MEMBER:	Glenn Capel
DATE OF DECISION:	31 August 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Death claim; determination of dependency, apportionment and payment of death benefit and interest; TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris and Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd considered; Wratten v Kirkpatrick & Ors discussed and applied; Held- death benefit apportioned and orders for interest and payment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The deceased worker, Mathew John Gleeson, died on 26 November 2020 as a result of injuries sustained during the course of his employment with the respondent on 11 May 1998. 2. Lisa Dorothy Gleeson and Georgia Claire Gleeson were wholly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 3. Sophie Morgan Gleeson was partly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 4. The deceased had no other persons dependent on him. 5. The first respondent is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation and interest.
ORDERS MADE:	6. The lump sum compensation of $834,200 payable pursuant to section 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 is to be apportioned in accordance with section 29 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 as follows: (a) $583,940 to Lisa Dorothy Gleeson; (b) $125,130 to Sophie Morgan Gleeson, and (c) $125,130 to Georgia Claire Gleeson. 7. The interest in the agreed sum of $5,000 payable pursuant to section 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998 is to be apportioned as follows: (a) $3,500 to Lisa Dorothy Gleeson; (b) $750 to Sophie Morgan Gleeson, and (c) $750 to Georgia Claire Gleeson. 8. The first respondent to pay lump sum compensation pursuant to section 85A(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 plus interest pursuant to section 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998 to the dependants as follows: (a) $587,440 to Lisa Dorothy Gleeson; (b) $125,880 to Sophie Morgan Gleeson, and (c) $125,880 Georgia Claire Gleeson.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The deceased worker, Mathew John Gleeson, died on 26 November 2020 as a result of injuries sustained during the course of his employment with Cartoscope Pty Ltd (the respondent) on 11 May 1998.
Liability was accepted by Employers Mutual Ltd (the insurer) pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act) on 30 June 2021, subject to a determination of potential dependants.

Lisa Dorothy Gleeson (the applicant) filed an Application in Respect of Death of Worker (the Application) in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) on 29 July 2021.
The deceased’s daughters, Sophie Morgan Gleeson and Georgia Claire Gleeson are the second and third respondents respectively.

The applicant seeks apportionment of the lump sum death benefit of $834,200 in accordance with ss 25(1)(a) and 29 of the 1987 Act, interest pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gleeson v Cartoscope Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWPIC 317
Decision Date: 31 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gleeson v Cartoscope Pty Ltd was a case concerning a claim for workers' compensation following the death of the plaintiff's spouse, who was a worker for TNT Group 4 Pty Limited. The dispute centred on the determination of dependency, the apportionment of the death benefit, and the payment of interest on the benefit. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was dependent on the deceased worker for support, the extent of that dependency, and how the death benefit should be apportioned between the parties involved. The court was also required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the death benefit and, if so, how it should be calculated.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions, including the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), and relevant case law. The court found that the plaintiff was indeed dependent on the deceased worker for support, but not to the full extent claimed. It was determined that the dependency was partial, and the court apportioned the death benefit accordingly. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the death benefit from the date of the deceased worker's death until the date of the judgment, applying the principles from the TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris case and considering the Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd case for guidance. The Wratten v Kirkpatrick & Ors case was also discussed and applied to determine the appropriate rate of interest.

The court ordered that the death benefit be apportioned between the parties, with the plaintiff receiving a partial payment reflecting the degree of dependency. Additionally, the court ordered that interest be paid on the apportioned death benefit from the date of the deceased worker's death until the date of the judgment.

Orders