Harmer Hire Pty Ltd v Harmer

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Harmer Hire Pty Ltd v Harmer & Ors [2025] NSWPIC 574
APPLICANT:	Harmer Hire Pty Ltd
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Edita Harmer
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Joshua Scott Harmer by his tutor Mick Ostojic
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Lachlan James Harmer by his tutor Vera Ostojic
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 three respondents 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 three respondents; the monies payable to the second and third 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 Commission determines: 1. That Adam Scott Harmer (the worker) died on 24 January 2023 as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the applicant, pursuant to s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). 2. That the first respondent 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 there were no other persons dependent on the worker for support. 6. That the applicant is liable to pay the amount of $871,200 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. 7. That the amount of $871,200 is to be apportioned as follows, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act: (a) first respondent – 66.7125803% - $581,200; (b) second respondent – 16.0697888% - $140,000, and (c) third respondent – 17.2176309% - $150,000. 8. That the applicant is to pay interest on the amounts awarded to the first respondent, the second respondent, and the third respondent, pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), as follows: (a) first respondent - $3,507.85; (b) second respondent - $845.01, and (c) third respondent- $905.37. 9. That the applicant is to pay management fees on the amounts awarded to the second respondent and the third respondent, pursuant to s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act. The Commission orders: 1. Pursuant to ss 25(1)(a) and 85A of the 1987 Act, the applicant is to pay the first respondent the amount of $581,200 together with interest of $3,507.85 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act). 2. Pursuant to ss 25(1)(a) and 85 of the 1987 Act, the applicant is to pay the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the second respondent the amount of $140,000, together with interest of $845.01 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act), together with management fees of $8,520.36 (in accordance with s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act). 3. Pursuant to ss 25(1)(a) and 85 of the 1987 Act, the applicant is to pay the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the third respondent the amount of $150,000, together with interest of $905.37 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act), together with management fees of $13,310.90 (in accordance with s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act). 4. Leave is given to the parties to approach the Commission on or before 7 November 2025, in order to correct any mathematical errors in the calculations referred to in orders 1-3 above. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Adam Scott Harmer (the worker) died on 24 January 2023 from mixed drug toxicity on a background of coronary atherosclerosis. It is accepted by Harmer Hire Pty Ltd (the applicant) that his death resulted from injuries which he received on 4 September 2018 in the course of his employment with it as a rigger.
He was 47-years-old at the time of his death, and he lived with his wife and his two children from his relationship with his wife.
His wife, Edita Harmer, is the first respondent. She is currently 48-years-old.
His eldest (currently 17-years-old) son, Joshua Scott Harmer, is the second respondent. He is represented by a tutor (Mick Ostojic - his grandfather), pursuant to a direction made by me on 20 August 2025.
His youngest (currently 15-years-old) son, Lachlan James Harmer, is the third respondent. He is represented by a tutor (Vera Ostojic – his grandmother), pursuant to a direction made by me on 30 September 2025.
The applicant has conceded liability for compensation flowing from the worker’s death (in accordance with the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act)), advising the first respondent’s solicitors formally in this regard by correspondence dated 18 March 2025.
By way of an Application in Respect of Death of Worker (ARDW) lodged with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 26 May 2025, the applicant seeks orders that the Commission apportion the conceded lump sum payable by it pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, between the three respondents, in accordance with s 29 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 $871,200 be apportioned between those dependants, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act, and

(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).

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The proceedings were listed for preliminary conferences (by MS Teams audiovisual links) on 20 August 2025 and 29 September 2025. Following the 29 September 2025 preliminary conference, orders were made for the serving and lodging by the parties of further evidence and written submissions. Upon receipt of those documents, I ordered that I would determine the issues listed at paragraph 8 above ‘on the papers’.
At the 29 September 2025 preliminary conference, the applicant was represented by
Mr Harris (solicitor) and Ms Dean and Ms Asvestas also appeared in its insurance interests. The first respondent was represented by Mr Richard Petrie of counsel, instructed by
Mr Irmako, and the first respondent was also present. The second respondent was represented by Mr Watson (solicitor), and his tutor was also present. The third respondent was represented by Mr Ty Hickey of counsel, instructed by Ms Cugalj, and his tutor was also present.
The issues for determination by me (listed at paragraph 8 above) were agreed by all parties. I was also informed:
(a)    the applicant had paid weekly benefits compensation in relation to the second and third respondents since the worker’s death - in accordance with s 25(1)(b) of the 1987 Act;
(b)    the applicant had paid the worker’s funeral expenses in accordance with s 26 of the 1987 Act;
(c)    the applicant conceded liability to pay the amount of $871,200 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act;
(d) all parties agreed that a total amount of $5,258.23 would be payable by the applicant to the three respondents for interest, in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act - all parties agreed that that total amount would be apportioned between the three respondents according to the apportionment determined by me in accordance with s 29 of the 1987 Act (see paragraph 8(b) above);
(e)    the first respondent requested that the amount awarded to her be paid to her – in accordance with s 85A of the 1987 Act;
(f)    all parties agreed that (considering their ages) the amounts awarded to the second respondent and the third 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;
(g)    as a result, all parties agreed that the applicant 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 and the third respondent, and
(h)    the three respondents were to lodge written submissions outlining an agreement reached by them (subject to my approval) regarding the apportionment of the lump sum payable by the applicant pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act.
In accordance with the orders which I made on 29 September 2025, written submissions have been lodged by all three respondents, and those submissions outline the agreement referred to at paragraph 11(h) above. The respondents ask that I approve the following apportionment agreed between them:
(a)    first respondent – 66.7125803% - an amount of $581,200;
(b)     second respondent – 16.0697888% - an amount of $140,000, and
(c)     third respondent – 17.2176309% - an amount of $150,000.
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 first respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
14 July 2025 (first respondent’s first ALAD) and attached documents;
(f)    the first respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
11 September 2025 (first respondent second ALAD) and attached documents;
(g)    the first respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
22 September 2025 (first respondent’s third ALAD) and attached documents;
(h)    the first respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
9 October 2025 (first respondent’s fourth ALAD) and attached documents, and
(i)    the third respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
11 September 2025 (third 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 24 January 2023 was $871,200.
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/documents in evidence from:
(a)    the first respondent – dated 17 April 2025 (found at page 24 of the ARDW) and dated 16 September 2025 (found at page 1 of the first respondent’s third ALAD);
(b)    Mick Ostojic - dated 1 April 2025 (found at page 36 of the ARDW) and dated
1 May 2025 (found at page 31 of the ARDW);
(c)    Vera Ostojic - dated 11 September 2025 (found at page 1 of the third respondent’s ALAD);
(d)    Kylie Sikma (the worker’s sister) - dated 11 September 2025 (found at page 1 of the first respondent’s second ALAD);
(e)    Stephen Harmer (the worker’s brother) - dated 11 September 2025 (found at page 8 of the first respondent’s second ALAD);
(f)    Geoff Harmer (the worker’s brother) - dated 11 September 2025 (found at page 16 of the first respondent’s second ALAD);
(g)    Lynne Harmer (the worker’s mother) - dated 17 September 2025 (found at page 2 of the first respondent’s third ALAD) and dated 2 October 2025 (found at page 1 of the first respondent’s fourth ALAD);
(h)    Dr John Adjei (the second respondent’s counsellor) - dated 15 September 2024 (found at page 3 of the second Reply), and
(i)    the second respondent’s Year 11 2025 interim report (found at page 9 of the second Reply).
The evidence in these statements/statutory declarations/documents is consistent as to all three respondents being dependent on the worker at the date of his death.
The first respondent and the worker had been in a relationship since 1992. They had lived together since 2000 and were married in 2007. They had two children together (the second respondent and the third respondent), and as at the date of the worker’s death, they all lived together as a family at Pitt Town.
The first respondent says in her 17 April 2025 statutory declaration that the worker was employed by the applicant, which was a family business. He and his brothers performed the “hands-on work” for the business, and she worked around 14 hours per week in the business managing payroll and invoicing. She and the worker received similar salaries of around $88,000 gross per annum. She says:
“Since Adam’s injury and passing, our household is now left without a sustainable income…I still maintained a small role within the company after Adam’s passing, though the business has dwindled and it’s no longer profitable. The business is in the process of closing, and it has not been trading since February 2025…Adam was the heart and soul of the company and since his injury the business has had difficulty remaining profitable. He was very involved in generating and obtaining new work…For the first time since 2007, I will need to go back to working outside of the family business as the company is winding up.”
She says that the worker attended “to all the handyman duties and basic home maintenance around the home”. He was also heavily involved in assisting their two children with their sporting and other recreational activities, as well as with their schooling.
The family home at Pitt Town was mortgaged in the names of both the worker and the first respondent. They shared a personal line of credit up to $1,200,000 “which we would use towards paying our household expenses, health insurance, bills, expenses for our children and just about everything else.”
The first respondent’s 17 April 2025 statutory declaration poignantly describes how the worker’s death has had a devastating effect upon her, as well as her children.
Mick Ostojic’s 1 May 2025 statement details the second respondent’s dependence upon the worker. Mick Ostojic is in an excellent position to provide these details, having known the second respondent for the second respondent’s entire life and having known the worker since the worker was a teenager. He says:
“Joshua was completely dependent on his father for financial support…Adam paid for Joshua’s school fees, the mortgage on the home, and most, if not all, domestic expenses…Joshua is now in Year 11 at high school. From discussions with his mother, we are hoping that he continues and completes Year 12. After high school, he may be looking at further education at TAFE or university, but it is a bit early to tell what he will be able to do. He may also explore becoming a police officer…Since his father’s death, I have observed that Joshua is withdrawn from some of his friends but has still managed to maintain some friendships…I understand Joshua was undergoing counselling with Dr John Edmund K. Adjei. He had treatment for about 8 months in 2024. I understand he stopped treatment towards the end of 2024, and I am not sure if he has restarted treatment.”
The second respondent’s counselling with Dr Adjei is also referred to in the doctor’s
15 September 2024 report, which concludes:
“I wish to state that Joshua is going through many situational, emotional and developmental challenges. These challenges tend to be common among children of his age however, Joshua has continuously struggled to manage his emotions after the sudden and traumatic death of his father. Joshua is faced with dealing with intense grief, trauma, depression, anxiety and many existential challenges… With the current mental health concerns mentioned above, I wish to state that Joshua would needs support, love, care and continuous guidance from caregivers to enable him feel safe and loved in order to focus on his recovery and learning. Joshua needs stability in these trying moments. Any sudden changes in his life could further jeopardise his mental health and recovery…Joshua has been humble, dedicated to treatment, participating and engaging in therapy. I believe with time he will overcome the challenges of his time and mature into what he is destined to be.”
In relation to the third respondent’s dependence upon the worker, there are statements/statutory declarations from both of his grandparents, who are in excellent positions to provide statements, having known the third respondent for the third respondent’s entire life and having known the worker since the worker was a teenager.
Vera Ostojic says in her 11 September 2025 statutory declaration:
“Adam had a fantastic relationship with Lachlan. They enjoyed many hobbies and sporting activities together. Adam was a devoted father and Lachlan adored him…Adam was the breadwinner and paid for the mortgage, school fees, swimming lessons, sporting activities, tutoring, and everyday living expenses…Lachlan’s life has forever changed since his father passed away. His schooling was initially affected as he became uninterested and withdrawn, however, he appears to be slowly returning to his previous level of engagement with his studies.”
Further, Mick Ostojic says in his 1 April 2025 statutory declaration:
“Adam was supportive of both of his sons. Adam and Lachlan had a shared interest in playing and watching sports. Lachlan engaged in extracurricular activities, playing soccer and rugby league. Adam would take Lachlan to training sessions and support him at his games…Adam would always help Lachlan with his schoolwork, particularly with mathematics. Adam was particularly knowledgeable with mathematics and was always happy to help when Lachlan requested…It is my understanding that Adam would pay for everything and looked after the family’s financial position. Lachlan lived with Adam, Edita and Joshua at their family home in Pitt Town NSW. I understand that Adam paid for the mortgage and utility bills, car maintenance and everyday living expenses…Adam paid for Lachlan’s school fees, tutoring, extracurricular activities such as soccer and rugby league and related sporting equipment. It is my understanding Adam also bought Lachlan a motor bike and push bike.”
In summary, the evidence is compelling that the worker and the three respondents were a very close tight-knit family, reliant mainly upon the worker financially. There is no doubt in my opinion that all three respondents 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.

Apart from the three respondents, 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 he would provide support for them into the future. In this regard, I note the following evidence:
(a)    the worker’s grandparents are deceased - see Lynne Harmer’s 2 October 2025 statement;
(b)    the worker’s mother has confirmed that she did not seek any compensation in respect of his death – see Lynne Harmer’s 2 October 2025 statement;
(c)    the worker’s father was not being provided with any financial support by the worker and there “was no expectation of financial support or otherwise to be expected from Adam either at the time of his passing or in the future” - see Lynne Harmer’s 2 October 2025 statement (noting that she is the worker’s mother and has power of attorney in relation to the worker’s father due to him losing capacity following a stroke in 2016);
(d)    the worker’s brothers have confirmed that they do not seek any compensation in respect of his death - see Stephen Harmer’s 11 September 2025 statement and Geoff Harmer’s 11 September 2025 statement;
(e)    the worker’s sister has confirmed that she does not seek any compensation in respect of his death – see Kylie Sikma’s 11 September 2025 statement;
(f)    the worker had not been in any relationship or marriage other than his relationship with the first respondent - see the first respondent’s 17 April 2025 statutory declaration (in which she declares that she and the worker had been in a relationship since 1992) as well as the marriage certificate of the worker and the first respondent dated 17 April 2007 (found at page 21 of the ARDW - in which it is noted that he had not been previously married), and
(g)    the worker had no children other than the second respondent and the third respondent – see Lynne Harmer’s 2 October 2025 statement as well as the first respondent’s 16 September 2025 statement.
Relying upon this evidence (especially the statement evidence from Lynne Harmer, who being the worker’s mother, is placed in one of the best positions to know his familial situation), I am satisfied that apart from the three respondents, there were no grandparents, parents, siblings, spouses, partners, children or others dependent on the worker for support.

How should the amount of $871,200 be apportioned between the three respondents, 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 12 above, the parties have agreed (subject to my approval) an apportionment of the lump sum payable under s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. The agreement in this regard is:
(a)    first respondent – 66.7125803% - an amount of $581,200;
(b)     second respondent – 16.0697888% - an amount of $140,000, and
(c)     third respondent – 17.2176309% - an amount of $150,000.
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 respondent. The apportionment allows the first respondent to receive just over two-thirds 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 for around 31 years. There was no evidence before me that the relationship was not likely to continue indefinitely. Indeed, all the evidence suggests an extremely durable relationship between the first respondent and the worker, with them each mutually sharing their family’s assets, liabilities, finances and responsibilities. The first respondent had a reasonable expectation of receiving substantial financial and other support from the worker for at least 20 years of his future working life. It is also important to note that the first respondent was only 46-years-old when the worker died.
The proposed apportionment also allows the children of the worker and the first respondent to receive appropriate allowances for their financial dependence upon both the worker and the first respondent, 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 some years, at least up until they had finished their studies and begun work. In this regard, it is to be noted that the second respondent was 14-years-old when the worker died, and the third respondent was 12-years-old when the worker died. Both of them were at stages in their life when they were in need of significant financial support with their schooling, social development, and sporting/recreational activities
There is no significant evidence before me that either of the children require any special medical or other needs. Following the worker’s death, the second respondent required counselling during 2024, and the third respondent’s schooling was also affected. However, the second respondent’s counsellor has opined a positive prognosis (see paragraph 26 above), and the third respondent’s tutor has declared improvement with his schooling (see paragraph 28 above).
I do note though that the second respondent is approximately 18 months older than the third respondent. As a result as at the date of the worker’s death, the third respondent could have expected to receive support (especially with schooling and social development) from the worker for slightly longer than the second respondent. The small difference of $10,000 between the apportioned amounts agreed in relation to the second respondent compared with the third respondent is therefore entirely appropriate in these circumstances.
As a result, I propose to approve the apportionment agreed between the parties.

Are the respondents 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 11(d) above, the parties have agreed as to how their relevant interest entitlements would be calculated.
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, and to award it in accordance with the agreement between the parties.

SUMMARY

In summary, I make the following formal findings:
(a) that the worker died on 24 January 2023 as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the applicant, pursuant to s 4 of the 1987 Act;
(b)    that the first respondent 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 there were no other persons dependent on the worker for support;
(f)    that the applicant is liable to pay the amount of $871,200 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act;
(g)    that the amount of $871,200 is to be apportioned as follows, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act:
(i)first respondent – 66.7125803% - $581,200;
(ii)second respondent – 16.0697888% - $140,000, and
(iii)third respondent – 17.2176309% - $150,000;
(h) that the applicant is to pay interest on the amounts awarded to the first respondent, the second respondent, and the third respondent, pursuant to s 109 of the 1998 Act, as follows:
(i)first respondent - $3,507.85;
(ii)second respondent - $845.01, and
(iii)third respondent- $905.37, and
(i)    that the applicant is to pay management fees on the amounts awarded to the second respondent and the third respondent, pursuant to s 25(1A) of the 1987 Act.
Section 85 of the 1987 Act requires me to order payment of awards pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act to the NSW Trustee and Guardian “in trust for the benefit of the persons entitled”, and there is no dispute that the awards to be entered in favour of the second respondent and the third respondent should be entered accordingly. However, s 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.”
The first respondent requests that the amount payable to her be paid to her rather than the NSW Trustee and Guardian. I am given a wide discretion in accordance with s 85A of the 1987 Act in relation to how I authorise the payment of amounts payable to dependents. There is no reason as a result why I would not order that the first respondent receive the amount payable to her, and I will do so.
Considering my findings, there will be awards that the applicant pay:
(a)    an amount of $581,200 together with interest of $3,507.85 to the first respondent;
(b)    an amount of $140,000 together with interest of $845.01 as well as management fees of $8,520.36 to the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the second respondent, and
(c)    an amount of $150,000 together with interest of $905.37 as well as management fees of $13,310.90 to the NSW Trustee and Guardian on trust for the benefit of the third respondent.
The parties will be given leave to approach the Commission on or before 7 November 2025 in order to correct any mathematical errors in my calculations based upon my findings.

[2025] NSWPIC 574

24 October 2025