Greaney v Wooroola Pastoral Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWPIC 577
•24 October 2025
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Greaney v Wooroola Pastoral Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] NSWPIC 577 |
| APPLICANT: | Chloe Lynette Greaney |
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Wooroola Pastoral Pty Ltd |
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Harry Mac Greaney by his tutor Sam Greaney |
| THIRD RESPONDENT: | Ted John Greaney by his tutor Laura Greaney |
| FOURTH RESPONDENT: | Billy Glen Greaney by his tutor Emma McMaster |
| MEMBER: | Gaius Whiffin |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 24 October 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); claim for benefits in respect of the death of a worker; apportionment of lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act; entitlement to interest under section 109 of the 1998 Act; consideration of statements and statutory declarations, claim correspondence, and factual material; consideration of who was dependent for support on the worker; TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris considered; consideration of appropriateness of apportionment agreed between the parties; consideration of interest entitlement; Pheeney v Doolan (No 2) considered; Held – no other persons but the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent were dependent for support on the worker; the apportionment of the lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act as agreed between the parties is approved; interest under section 109 of the 1998 Act is awarded; awards entered in favour of the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent accordingly; the monies payable to the second, third, and fourth respondents are to be paid in trust for their benefit to the NSW Trustee and Guardian; management fees in this regard also ordered in accordance with section 25(1)(A) of the 1987 Act. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines: 1. That Jack Hayden Greaney (the worker) died on 29 October 2024 as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the first respondent, pursuant to s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). 2. That the applicant was dependent on the worker for support. 3. That the second respondent was dependent on the worker for support. 4. That the third respondent was dependent on the worker for support. 5. That the fourth respondent was dependent on the worker for support. 6. That there were no other persons dependent on the worker for support. 7. That the first respondent is liable to pay the amount of $938,600 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. 8. That the amount of $938,600 is to be apportioned as follows, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act: (a) applicant – 50%; (b) second respondent – 15.5%; (c) third respondent – 16.5%, and (d) fourth respondent – 18%. 9. That the first respondent is to pay interest on the amounts awarded to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent and the fourth respondent, pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), from (a) between 13 February 2025 and 17 February 2025 – 6.35%; (b) between 18 February 2025 and 19 May 2025 – 6.1%; (c) between 20 May 2025 and 11 August 2025 – 5.85%, and (d) between 12 August 2025 and 23 October 2025 – 5.6%. 10. That the first respondent is to pay management fees on the amounts awarded to the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, pursuant to s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act. The Commission orders: 1. The claims brought in the proceedings pursuant to ss 25(1)(b) and 26 of the 1987 Act are discontinued. 2. Pursuant to ss 25 and 85A of the 1987 Act, the first respondent is to pay the applicant the amount of $469,300 together with interest of $19,195.02 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act). 3. Pursuant to ss 25 and 85 of the 1987 Act, the first respondent is to pay the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the second respondent the amount of $145,483, together with interest of $5,950.46 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act), together with management fees of $38,359.21 (in accordance with s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act). 4. Pursuant to ss 25 and 85 of the 1987 Act, the first respondent is to pay the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the third respondent the amount of $154,869, together with interest of $6,334.36 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act), together with management fees of $46,057.42 (in accordance with s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act). 5. Pursuant to ss 25 and 85 of the 1987 Act, the first respondent is to pay the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the fourth respondent the amount of $168,948, together with interest of $6,910.21 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act), together with management fees of $52,436.12 (in accordance with s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act). 6. Leave is given to the parties to approach the Commission on or before 6 November 2025, in order to correct any mathematical errors in the calculations referred to in orders 2-5 above. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
Jack Hayden Greaney (the worker) died on 29 October 2024 as a result of injuries which he received on 24 October 2024 in the course of his employment with Wooroola Pastoral Pty Ltd (the first respondent) as a farm manager.
He was 35-years-old at the time of his death, and he lived with his de facto partner and his three children from his relationship with his de facto partner.
His de facto partner, Chloe Lynette Greaney, is the applicant. She is currently 35-years-old.
His eldest (currently 6-years-old) son, Harry Mac Greaney, is the second respondent. He is represented by a tutor (Sam Greaney - his uncle and the worker’s brother), pursuant to a direction made by me on 18 August 2025.
His next (currently 4-years-old) son, Ted John Greaney, is the third respondent. He is represented by a tutor (Laura Greaney – his aunt and the worker’s sister), pursuant to a direction made by me on 11 July 2025.
His youngest (currently 3-years-old) son, Billy Glen Greaney, is the fourth respondent. He is represented by a tutor (Emma McMaster - his aunt and the applicant’s sister), pursuant to a direction made by me on 18 August 2025.
The first respondent has conceded liability for compensation flowing from the worker’s death (in accordance with the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act)), advising the applicant formally in this regard by correspondence dated 20 March 2025.
By way of an Application in Respect of Death of Worker (ARDW) lodged with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 11 June 2025, the applicant seeks orders:
(a) that a lump sum pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act in the amount of $938,600 be paid by the first respondent – as apportioned (in accordance with s 29 of the 1987 Act) between herself, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent;
(b) that weekly benefits compensation be paid by the first respondent to the applicant in relation to the second, third and fourth respondents – in accordance with s 25(1)(b) of the 1987 Act;
(c) that the worker’s funeral expenses be paid pursuant to s 26 of the 1987 Act, and
(d) that relevant orders for payment be made in accordance with ss 85 and 85A of the 1987 Act.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The parties have agreed that the only issues requiring determination by me in these proceedings are:
(a) who was dependent for support on the worker;
(b) how should the amount of $938,600 be apportioned between those dependants, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act;
(c) are the dependants entitled to interest on the amounts awarded to them, pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), and
(d) how are the amounts awarded to the dependants to be paid in accordance with ss 85 and 85A of the 1987 Act.
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
The proceedings were listed for preliminary conferences (by MS Teams audiovisual links) on 11 July 2025, 15 August 2025, and 17 October 2025. Following the 17 October 2025 preliminary conference, the parties were content for me to determine the issues listed at paragraph 9 above ‘on the papers’.
At the 17 October 2025 preliminary conference, the applicant was represented by Mr Ross Hanrahan of counsel, instructed by Ms Kakala, and the applicant was also present. The first respondent was represented by Ms Risti (solicitor) as well as Ms Dean and Mr Jay. The second respondent was represented by Ms Sutcliffe and his tutor was also present. The third respondent was represented by Ms Stirling and his tutor was also present. The fourth respondent was represented by Ms Wehbe and his tutor was also present.
The issues for determination by me (listed at paragraph 9 above) were agreed by all parties. I was also informed:
(a) the first respondent had paid weekly benefits compensation in relation to the second, third and fourth respondents since the worker’s death - in accordance with s 25(1)(b) of the 1987 Act;
(b) the first respondent had paid the worker’s funeral expenses in accordance with s 26 of the 1987 Act;
(c) all parties therefore agreed that the claims in the ARDW pursuant to ss 25(1)(b) and 26 of the 1987 Act would be discontinued;
(d) the first respondent conceded liability to pay the amount of $938,600 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act;
(e) the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent had come to an agreement (subject to my approval) regarding apportionment of the amount payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act;
(f) all parties agreed that interest from 13 February 2025, in accordance with s 109 of 1998 Act, would be payable on the amounts awarded to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, pursuant to rates 2% higher than the applicable cash rate set by the Reserve Bank of Australia from time to time - I therefore note the agreed interest rates to be:
(i)13 February 2025 to 17 February 2025 (5 days) at 6.35%;
(ii)18 February 2025 to 19 May 2025 (91 days) at 6.1%;
(iii)20 May 2025 to 11 August 2025 (85 days) at 5.85%, and
(iv)12 August 2025 to 23 October 2025 (73 days) at 5.6%;
(g) the applicant requested that the amount awarded to her be paid to her – in accordance with s 85A of the 1987 Act;
(h) all parties agreed that (considering their ages) the amounts awarded to the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent would (in accordance with s 85 of the 1987 Act) be payable to the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of those respondents, and
(i) as a result, all parties agreed that the first respondent was required to pay management fees (in accordance with s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act) in relation to the amounts (including relevant interest) awarded to the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent.
In relation to the apportionment agreement referred to at paragraph 12(e) above, I engaged in further conciliation at the 17 October 2025 preliminary conference, and all parties eventually confirmed the following apportionment agreement between them:
(a) applicant – 50% – an amount of $469,300;
(b) second respondent – 15.5% – an amount of $145,483;
(c) third respondent – 16.5% – an amount of $154,869, and
(d) fourth respondent – 18% – an amount of $168,948.
All parties requested that I approve this apportionment agreement.
I am grateful to all parties for their assistance in these proceedings, and for their timely provision of evidence in the proceedings. I am also grateful to them for the courteous and respectful manner in which they have conducted themselves.
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
The following documents were in evidence before the Commission in these proceedings and considered in making this determination - no party had any objection to the admission of any of these documents:
(a) the ARDW and attached documents;
(b) the first respondent’s Reply (first Reply) and attached documents;
(c) the second respondent’s Reply (second Reply) and attached documents;
(d) the third respondent’s Reply (third Reply) and attached documents;
(e) the fourth respondent’s Reply (fourth Reply) and attached documents;
(f) the applicant’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 4 August 2025 (applicant’s ALAD) and attached documents;
(g) the second respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
8 July 2025 (second respondent’s first ALAD) and attached documents;(h) the second respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
5 August 2025 (second respondent’s second ALAD) and attached documents;(i) the second respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
19 September 2025 (second respondent’s third ALAD) and attached documents;(j) the third respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
21 July 2025 (third respondent’s ALAD) and attached documents, and(k) the fourth respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
12 August 2025 (fourth respondent’s ALAD) and attached documents.
Oral evidence
There was no oral evidence given in these proceedings.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Who was dependent for support on the worker
Section 25 of the 1987 Act provides:
“(1) If death results from an injury, the amount of compensation payable by the employer under this Act shall be-
(a)the amount of $750,000 (the ‘lump sum death benefit’), which is to be apportioned among any dependants who are wholly or partly dependent for support on the worker or (if there are no such dependants) paid to the worker's legal personal representative…”
The amount of $750,00 has been indexed, and the parties have agreed that the correct amount to be awarded as at 29 October 2024 was $938,600.
Section 4 of the 1998 Act then defines a dependant as follows:
“‘dependants’ of a worker means such of the members of the worker's family as were wholly or in part dependent for support on the worker at the time of the worker's death, or would but for the incapacity due to the injury have been so dependent…”
I have carefully considered the statements/statutory declarations in evidence from:
(a) the applicant - dated 30 May 2025 (found at page 2 of the ARDW) and dated
31 July 2025 (found at page 1 of the applicant’s ALAD);(b) Sam Greaney - dated 10 January 2025 (found at page 48 of the ARDW), dated
7 July 2025 (found at page 1 of the second respondent’s first ALAD), dated
4 August 2025 (found at page 1 of the second respondent’s second ALAD), and dated 1 September 2025 (found at page 1 of the second respondent’s third ALAD);(c) Laura Greaney - dated 10 January 2025 (found at page 50 of the ARDW), dated 3 July 2025 (found at page 1 of the third Reply), and dated 11 July 2025 (found at page 1 of the third respondent’s ALAD);
(d) Emma McMaster - dated 27 June 2025 (found at page 1 of the fourth Reply) and dated 10 August 2025 (found at page 1 of the fourth respondent’s ALAD), and
(e) Cathy Lorraine Greaney (the worker’s mother) - dated 10 January 2025 (found at page 49 of the ARDW).
The evidence in these statements/statutory declarations is consistent as to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent all being dependent on the worker at the date of his death.
The applicant and the worker were in a long-term relationship and had three children (being the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent) together. They all lived together at Bourkelands. The applicant and the worker took responsibility together for raising their young children. The applicant and the children had reasonable expectations that the worker would provide support for them into the future – see TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris (1987) 8 NSWLR 486.
The applicant says in her 30 May 2025 statement:
“I confirm that at the time of Jack's death, my children and I were financially dependent on him for support, including but not limited to living expenses, housing, medical care and other necessities of life…My dependency on Jack was substantial and ongoing and his income played a crucial role in maintaining our standard of living…From his job, Jack earned around $84,000.00 per annum. His total salary package came to an amount of $92,595.00 which included car running costs (rego, fuel, insurance and maintenance). He also received a bonus of $5,000 in 2022 and 2023 due to larger production and profit yields in those years…I depended on Jack to help with the maintenance of our house including mowing, gardening and general maintenance on the property…Jack was a very involved and loving father to our sons. Losing Jack has changed our lives dramatically, in every aspect. There are no words to describe the pain of losing him and how it will affect my sons for the rest of their lives growing up not knowing their father and how amazing he was…Jack and I had the intention of providing continuous financial support to our children throughout their lives, ensuring they have a comfortable home and everything they may need.”
The applicant further says in her 31 July 2025 statement:
“Prior to Jack's accident, Jack and I had plans for our future together and intended to spend the rest of our lives raising our boys. The loss of Jack has significantly changed many things in our lives however my focus will always be on our three boys and raising them in the way Jack and I had always intended.”
Sam Greaney (in his 7 July 2025 statement) also refers to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent being “all financially and emotionally dependent on Jack along with relying upon him for care giving activities and labour”. Laura Greaney (in her 3 July 2025 statement) further says:
“At the time of Jack’s death, Chloe and the 3 children were financially dependent on Jack for support. This included general life expenses together with living costs, housing costs and medical costs. It was Jack’s intention to support his family financially on an ongoing basis…Prior to his passing, Jack would help with the maintenance of his family house including mowing, gardening and general maintenance…Jack was paying mortgage repayments on the family home…Jack also made ongoing payments to the family vehicle which they used as their main mode of transportation.”
Apart from the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, it now remains for me to determine whether there were any other persons who were dependent on the worker in that they had reasonable expectations that the worker would provide support for them into the future. In this regard, I note the following evidence:
(a) the worker’s grandparents are deceased - see Sam Greaney’s 4 August 2025 statement;
(b) the worker’s father is deceased - see Sam Greaney’s 4 August 2025 statement;
(c) the worker’s mother has declared that she was not dependent on him and did not seek any compensation in respect of his death - see Cathy Lorraine Greaney’s 10 January 2025 statutory declaration;
(d) the worker only had two siblings (Sam Greaney and Laura Greaney) - see Sam Greaney’s 1 September 2025 statement;
(e) Sam Greaney has declared that he was not dependent on the worker and did not seek any compensation in respect of his death – see Sam Greaney’s
10 January 2025 statutory declaration;(f) Laura Greaney has declared that she was not dependent on the worker and did not seek any compensation in respect of his death - see Laura Greaney’s
10 January 2025 statutory declaration;(g) the worker was not married prior to his relationship with the applicant - see Sam Greaney’s 1 September 2025 statement, and
(h) the worker had no children other than the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent – see Sam Greaney’s 1 September 2025 statement.
Relying upon this evidence (especially the statement evidence from Sam Greaney, who being the worker’s brother, is placed in one of the best positions to know his familial situation), I am satisfied that apart from the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, there were no grandparents, parents, siblings, spouses, partners, children or others dependent on the worker for support.
How should the amount of $938,600 be apportioned between the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act
Section 29 of the 1987 Act relevantly provides:
“(1) The compensation payable under this Division to each dependant of a deceased worker may be apportioned by the Commission or by the NSW Trustee.
(1A) The lump sum death benefit payable under this Division is not to be apportioned if a deceased worker leaves only one dependant (whether wholly or partly dependent on the worker for support) and the whole of the lump sum death benefit is to be paid to that one dependant.
(1B) In apportioning the lump sum death benefit payable under this Division between 2 or more dependants, the whole lump sum death benefit is to be apportioned among those dependants (so that the sum of the apportioned amounts equals the full lump sum death benefit).”
As indicated at paragraph 13 above, the parties have agreed an appropriate apportionment of the lump sum payable under s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. The agreement in this regard is:
(a) applicant – 50%;
(b) second respondent – 15.5%;
(c) third respondent – 16.5%, and
(d) fourth respondent – 18%.
I consider this proposed apportionment to be a sound apportionment of the appropriate lump sum having regard to the dependency levels upon the worker of each dependent. The apportionment allows the applicant to receive one half of the lump sum, which is appropriate considering that at the time of the worker’s death, she had been in a long-term relationship with the worker. There was no evidence before me that the relationship was not likely to continue indefinitely. Indeed, the evidence (especially from Sam Greaney, Laura Greaney, and Emma McMaster) suggests a very strong relationship between the applicant and the worker, with them each mutually sharing their family’s assets, liabilities, finances and responsibilities. The applicant had a reasonable expectation of receiving substantial financial and other support from the worker for over 30 years of his future working life. It is also important to note that the applicant was only 34-years-old when the worker died.
The proposed apportionment also allows the children of the worker and the applicant to receive appropriate allowances for their financial dependence upon both the worker and the applicant, in that they were totally dependent upon the two of them at the date of the worker’s death. This level of dependence was likely to continue for many years, at least up until they had finished their studies and begun work. In this regard, the applicant’s 30 May 2025 statement is clear as to the worker’s absolute intent on providing his children with the best educational opportunities that he and the applicant could.
There is no evidence before me that any of the children require any special medical or other needs. However, the second respondent is approximately 18 months older than the third respondent, and the third respondent is approximately two years older than the fourth respondent. As a result as at the date of the worker’s death, the fourth respondent could have expected to receive support from him for slightly longer than the third respondent, and the third respondent could have expected to receive support from him for slightly longer than the second respondent. The small difference in the various apportionments to the three children is entirely appropriate in the circumstances.
I therefore propose to approve the apportionment agreed between the parties.
Are the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent entitled to interest on the amounts awarded to them, pursuant to s 109 of the 1998 Act
Section 109 of the 1998 Act relevantly provides:
“(1) In any proceedings before the Commission, the Commission may order that there is to be included, in any sum to be paid, interest at such rate as the Commission thinks fit on the whole or any part of the sum for the whole or any part of the period before the sum is payable, subject to the limitations imposed by this section.
(2) Interest cannot be ordered under this section-
(a) on any compensation payable under Division 4 of Part 3 of the 1987 Act, or
(b) on any compensation payable under this Act for any period before a claim for the compensation was duly made, or
(c) on any compensation payable under this Act for any period during which proceedings before the Commission were adjourned on the application of the claimant for the compensation or pursuant to section 102.
(3) This section does not-
(a) authorise the giving of interest upon interest, or
(b) apply in relation to any debt upon which interest is payable as of right whether by virtue of any agreement or otherwise.”
As indicated at paragraph 12(f) above, the parties have agreed as to the interest rates to be paid by the first respondent on the amounts awarded to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent and the fourth respondent. There is also no dispute between the parties regarding the period during which interest is to be paid.
The power of the Commission to award interest is however discretionary. The relevant interest rate to be awarded is also within the discretion of the Commission.
In Pheeney v Doolan (No 2) [1977] 1 NSWLR 601 (Pheeney), the Court of Appeal said that it was necessary to determine in what respect a party has been financially disadvantaged by delay in the payment of (in that case) damages so as to make an appropriate allowance of interest. Reynolds JA, Moffitt P and Mahoney JA agreeing on point, said:
“It provides an ancillary power akin to an order for costs, and its purpose is to aid the court to do more complete justice between the parties than is otherwise possible ... It is not designed to compensate a plaintiff for loss arising out of the cause of action, but to provide compensation where it is otherwise appropriate to do so for the circumstance that a sum of money has been outstanding to him for a period of time.”
Applying this reasoning, and considering the agreement of the parties, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to award interest.
In relation to the interest rates to be applied, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the rates proposed by the parties. In doing so, I note the purpose behind interest awards per Pheeney. I also note that the rates are calculated with reliance upon the Reserve Bank of Australia’s cash rates since 13 February 2025.
How are the amounts awarded to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent to be paid in accordance with ss 85 and 85A of the 1987 Act
Section 85 of the 1987 Act reads as follows:
“(1) The following compensation shall be paid to the NSW Trustee in trust for the benefit of the persons entitled to the compensation--
(a) compensation payable in respect of the death of a worker (unless paid to a worker's legal personal representative or a particular person in accordance with this Act or an award),
(b) compensation payable to a person who is mentally ill (unless the Commission otherwise orders),
(c) compensation payable to a worker under the age of 18 years if the worker agrees or the Commission directs that the compensation be paid to the NSW Trustee,
(d) a lump sum commutation payment which the worker agrees or the Commission orders to be paid to the NSW Trustee.
(2) Any money so paid to the NSW Trustee may be invested, applied, paid out or otherwise dealt with by the NSW Trustee in such manner as the NSW Trustee thinks fit for the benefit of the persons entitled to the money.
(3) If a surviving spouse (including widow or widower) (over 18 years of age and not mentally ill) is the only person entitled to compensation paid to the NSW Trustee in respect of the death of a worker, the compensation shall be paid out to the surviving spouse in one or more lump sums determined by the NSW Trustee.
(4) A reference in subsection (3) to the surviving spouse of a deceased worker includes a reference to a dependant of the worker who is the de facto partner of the worker.
(5) In the case of a lump sum commutation payment, the NSW Trustee shall exercise its powers under this section in accordance with the agreement or order under which it was paid to the NSW Trustee.
(6) The Commission may, for any sufficient cause, vary the manner in which the NSW Trustee invests, applies, pays out or otherwise deals with money under this section.
(7) The NSW Trustee may apply for any such variation.
(8) The receipt of the NSW Trustee is sufficient discharge in respect of any money paid to the NSW Trustee under this section.”
Section 85A of the 1987 Act reads as follows:
“(1) Despite section 85, the Commission may authorise the payment of compensation referred to in section 85 (1)--
(a) to the person who is entitled to the compensation, or
(b) to such other person, for the benefit of the person entitled to the compensation, as the Commission thinks fit.
(2) Any such payment is to be made in the manner authorised by the Commission.”
I am given a wide discretion in accordance with s 85A of the 1987 Act in relation to how I authorise the payment of the amounts payable to the dependents. There is no reason why I would not order that the applicant receive the amount payable to her, and I will do so.
The amounts payable to the second, third and fourth respondents however need to be paid into trust funds as they are all well under 18-years-of-age. I note that the applicant was initially considering setting up trust funds by herself in this regard, and had sought relevant financial advice. However, in my opinion, those trust funds (as referred to in the applicant’s ALAD) were not appropriate, and I note (see paragraph 12(h) above) that all parties are now content with the amounts payable to the second, third and fourth respondents being paid to the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of those respondents, in accordance with s 85 of the 1987 Act.
As a result of the need for these amounts to be paid to the NSW Trustee and Guardian, the first respondent will be ordered to pay management fees (in accordance with s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act) as additional compensation.
SUMMARY
In summary, I make the following formal findings:
(a) that the worker died on 29 October 2024 as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the first respondent, pursuant to s 4 of the 1987 Act;
(b) that the applicant was dependent on the worker for support;
(c) that the second respondent was dependent on the worker for support;
(d) that the third respondent was dependent on the worker for support;
(e) that the fourth respondent was dependent on the worker for support;
(f) that there were no other persons dependent on the worker for support;
(g) that the first respondent is liable to pay the amount of $938,600 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act;
(h) that the amount of $938,600 is to be apportioned as follows, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act:
(i)applicant – 50%;
(ii)second respondent – 15.5%;
(iii)third respondent – 16.5%, and
(iv)fourth respondent – 18%;
(i) that the first respondent is to pay interest on the amounts awarded to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent and the fourth respondent, pursuant to s 109 of the 1998 Act, from 13 February 2025, at the following rates:
(i)between 13 February 2025 and 17 February 2025 – 6.35%;
(ii)between 18 February 2025 and 19 May 2025 – 6.1%;
(iii)between 20 May 2025 and 11 August 2025 – 5.85%, and
(iv)between 12 August 2025 and 23 October 2025 – 5.6%, and
(j) that the first respondent is to pay management fees on the amounts awarded to the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, pursuant to s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act.
Considering my findings, there will be awards that the first respondent pay:
(a) an amount of $469,300 together with interest of $19,195.02 to the applicant;
(b) an amount of $145,483 together with interest of $5,950.46 as well as management fees of $38,359.21 to the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the second respondent;
(c) an amount of $154,869 together with interest of $6,334.36 as well as management fees of $46,057.42 to the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the third respondent, and
(d) an amount of $168,948 together with interest of $6,910.21 as well as management fees of $52,436.12 to the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the fourth respondent.
The parties will be given leave to approach the Commission on or before 6 November 2025 in order to correct any mathematical errors in my calculations based upon my findings.
0