Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School Ltd v Oezodabasyan

[2024] NSWPIC 329

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 

CITATION:

Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School Ltd v Oezodabasyan & Ors [2024] NSWPIC 329

APPLICANT:

Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School Limited

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Belinda Oezodabasyan

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Lio Manouk Emanuel Stoebe

THIRD RESPONDENT:

Luca Aren Sydney Stoebe

MEMBER:

Elizabeth Beilby

DATE OF DECISION:

24 June 2024

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim in respect of lump sum death benefits; parties agreed on proposed resolution of matter; Held – apportionment deemed appropriate in the circumstances.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

The Commission determines:

1.     The deceased worker, Jonas Stoebe, died on 13 September 2023 as a result of injury sustained during the course of his employment with the applicant.

2.     The respondents were all either partly or fully dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death.

3.     The deceased had no other persons dependent on him.

4.     The applicant is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation.

5. The lump sum compensation of $891,100 payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 is to be apportioned in accordance with s 29 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 as follows:

(a)     $801,990 to Belinda Oezodabasyan, and

(b)     $44,555 to Lio Manouk Emanuel Stoebe, and Luca Aren Sydney Stoebe respectively.

6.     The applicant is to pay interest on the lump sum benefit as follows:

(a)     $5,022.87 to Belinda Oezodabasyan,

(b)     $279.05 to Lio Manouk, Emanuel Stoebe, and Luca Aren Sydney Stoebe respectively.

7. The applicant is to pay financial management fees pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 as follows:

(a)     $9,049.22 to Lio Manouk, Emanuel Stoebe, and

(b)     $13,407,28 to Luca Aren Sydney Stoebe.

8. The applicant is to pay lump sum compensation pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) and (b) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 as follows:

(a)     $801,990 to Belinda Oezodabasyan directly, and

(b) the entitlements of the second and third respondents are to be paid to the NSW Trustee and Guardian to be dealt with in accordance with s 85(2) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 until the second and third respondents attain their majority.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

1. This is claim is for benefits pursuant to s 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) arising out of the death of Jonas Stoebe (the deceased). Mr Stoebe died on 13 September 2023 as a result of injury sustained during the course of his employment with Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School Limited (the applicant).

2. Belinda Oezodabasyan (the first respondent) is the deceased’s de facto partner. They met in 1991 and have enjoyed a long committed relationship. They had two children together, Lio Manouk Emanuel Stoebe, and Luca Aren Sydney Stoebe (the second and third respondents).

3. The family lived together and relied upon the incomes of the deceased and the first respondent to both meet all expenses but also invest in real estate (presumably for the future benefit of all the family).

4. The two children of the relationship (the second and third respondents) are presently aged 13 and 10 respectively. There is no evidence that they have any ‘special’ or ‘additional needs’. There is no evidence of any illness or additional challenges they face.

5. There is also no doubt that the first respondent is a committed and loyal mother who will look after the interests and needs of her two children.

6. The insurer is currently paying weekly benefits in respect of the two children and has also met incurred funeral expenses.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. The parties agreed that the following issues were in dispute at the commencement of the preliminary conference on 12 June 2024 (though a proposal was reached in regard to all these issues at the conference):

   (a)    were the first, second and third respondents wholly or partly dependent for support on the deceased at the time of his death?

   (b)    How should the lump sum death benefit be apportioned between the respondents?

   (c) Is the applicant liable to pay interest on the lump sum death benefit pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998?

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

1. 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. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been able to reach an agreed proposed resolution of the dispute.

2. When this matter was listed for telephone conference on 12 June 2024. All parties were legally represented. The parties were able to agree on a proposed resolution regarding apportionment, entitlement to interest and funds management fees.

3. Following the telephone conference, short joint submissions were received from the respondents regarding apportionment. Agreed figures regarding apportionment, interest and funds management were also helpfully forwarded to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission).

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

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

   (a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and

   (b)    Replies and attached documents from the first, second and third respondents.

Oral evidence

1. There was no application to adduce oral evidence.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Dependency and apportionment

1. Authorities such as Warilla Timber and Hardware Pty Ltd v Newton[1] and Albury Real Estate Pty Ltd v Rouse and Anor[2] provide that the term “support” in s 25 of the 1987 Act is not limited to financial support. It also encompasses other factors including assistance with day-to-day activities and emotional support.

   [1] (1995) 11 NSWCCR 546.

   [2] (2006) NSWCCPD 139.

2. There is no doubt that the respondents were dependent upon the deceased as at the date of death, they all lived as a close family with the second and third respondents both being school students. Mr Stoebe was a committed partner and father who quite clearly wanted the best for his family.

3. There is also no evidence that any other person (other than the named respondents) was dependent upon the deceased as at the date of death. Indeed, Mr Stoebe had no other family in Australia as at the time of death.

4. In apportioning the lump sum benefit, it is necessary to review all of the relevant facts disclosed in the evidence. In Wratten v Kirkpatrick,[3] 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.”

   [3] (1996) NSW CC2; (1996) NSWCCR2.

5. The parties came to a preliminary agreement in relation to apportionment of the lump sum death benefitand this was confirmed by joint written submissions on behalf of the respondents dated 14 June 2024.

6. The submissions recognise that the first respondent was heavily dependent upon the deceased in respect of their financial commitments and mortgages. The second and third respondents are now reliant upon their mother in respect of all living expenses. It is also observed that the dependency of the second and third respondents will decrease in time as they reach adulthood.

7. It should be observed that the second and third respondents have no ‘special’ or ‘additional’ needs that should be recognised.

8. 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.

SUMMARY

1. The deceased worker, Jonas Stoebe, died on 13 September 2023 as a result of injury sustained during the course of his employment with the respondent.

2. The respondents were all either partly or fully dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death.

3. The deceased had no other persons dependent on him.

4. The applicant is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation.

5. The lump sum compensation of $891,100 payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act is to be apportioned in accordance with s 29 of the 1987 Act as follows:

   (a)     $801,990 to Belinda Oezodabasyan, and

   (b)     $44,555 to Lio Manouk Emanuel Stoebe, and Luca Aren Sydney Stoebe respectively.

6. The applicant is to pay interest on the lump sum benefit as follows:

   (a)     $5,022.87 to Belinda Oezodabasyan;

   (b)     $279.05 to Lio Manouk Emanuel Stoebe and Luca Aren Sydney Stoebe respectively.

7. The applicant is to pay Financial Management fees pursuant to s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act as follows:

   (a)     $9.049.22 to Lio Manouk Emanuel Stoebe, and

   (b)     $13,407,28 to Luca Aren Sydney Stoebe.

8. The applicant is to pay lump sum compensation pursuant to s 85A(1)(a) of the 1987 Act to the dependants as follows:

   (a)     $801,990 to Belinda Oezodabasyan directly, and

   (b) the entitlements of the second and third respondents are to be paid to the NSW Trustee and Guardian to be dealt with in accordance with s 85(2) of the 1987 Act until the second and third respondents attain their majority.