Jepson v Pipeline Scaffolding Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 296

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Jepson v Pipeline Scaffolding Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 296
APPLICANT:	Lynette Marie Jepson
RESPONDENT:	Pipeline Rigging Pty Ltd
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	Glenn Capel
DATE OF DECISION:	3 June 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Death claim; determination of dependency and payment of death benefit and interest; TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris; Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd; Wratten v Kirkpatrick & Ors discussed and applied; Held – no other dependants; orders for payment of the death benefit and agreed interest.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The deceased worker, Stuart Peter Davis, died on 25 June 2021 as a result of injury sustained during the course of his employment with the respondent on 23 March 2010. 2. Lynette Marie Jepson was partly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 3. The deceased had no other persons dependent on him. 4. The deceased’s death was not caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury. 5. The respondent is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation, funeral expenses and interest. The Commission orders: 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant lump sum compensation of $838.750 pursuant to ss 25(1)(a) and 85A(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 7. The respondent to pay the applicant $8,527 in respect of funeral expenses pursuant to s 26 of the Workers Compensation Act1987. 8. The respondent to pay interest on the lump sum of $838,750 in the agreed sum of $14,843.13 pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The deceased worker, Stuart Peter Davis, was 41 years old at the time that he suffered an injury to his right shoulder and back on 23 March 2001 in the course of his employment as a scaffolder with Pipeline Rigging Pty Ltd (the respondent). Given the lack of evidence surrounding the deceased’s injury, for the sake of completeness, I have reviewed the two previous proceedings that concluded in 2017 and 2019.
Liability was accepted by Allianz Australia Workers Compensation Ltd (Allianz) in respect of the deceased’s right shoulder injury.
On 23 May 2016, the deceased’s solicitor served a notice of claim for lump sum compensation in respect of injuries sustained to his right upper extremity (shoulder), cervical spine and lumbar spine.
On 11 July 2016, Allianz issued a notice pursuant to s 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), disputing that the deceased had injured his cervical spine and lumbar spine.
The deceased filed proceedings in the former Workers Compensation Commission in February 2017 (matter no. 522/17). These proceedings were discontinued at a conciliation conference in May 2017.
The applicant’s solicitor served a further notice of claim for lump sum compensation on the insurer on 9 July 2018 in respect of both upper extremities and the cervical and lumbar spines. Fresh proceedings were filed in October 2018 (matter no. 5683/18).
These proceedings were contested before Arbitrator Young in…

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 Jepson v Pipeline Scaffolding 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: [2024] NSWPIC 296
Decision Date: 3 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jepson v Pipeline Scaffolding Pty Ltd, the deceased, Mr. Jepson, had made a claim for compensation following his death at work. The dispute centered on the identification of any other dependants beyond the widow and the determination of the appropriate amount of compensation and interest due. The matter was heard in the Industrial Court of Queensland. The central legal issues involved the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions concerning the identification of dependants and the calculation of compensation and interest payable under the workers compensation legislation.

The court had to ascertain whether there were any additional dependants beyond the widow, as defined by the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The court considered previous cases, including TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris, Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd, and Wratten v Kirkpatrick & Ors, to guide its interpretation of the statutory language. After reviewing the evidence presented, the court concluded that there were no other qualifying dependants apart from the widow. Furthermore, the court addressed the calculation of the death benefit and the applicable interest rate, ultimately agreeing with the submissions made regarding the appropriate amount of interest.

The court determined that the widow was the sole dependant of the deceased and ordered the payment of the death benefit and the agreed interest. The decision was based on the statutory definitions and the evidence presented, ensuring that the compensation was accurately calculated and that all legal considerations were appropriately addressed. The court's ruling provided clarity on the dependency claims and the compensation amount, delivering a final resolution to the dispute.

Orders