Kahlia Boyd v Belconnen Concrete Pty Ltd ATF Spinelli Trust Fund
[2013] ACTMC 10
•13 AUGUST 2013
KAHLIA BOYD v BELCONNEN CONCRETE PTY LTD ATF SPINELLI TRUST FUND
[2013] ACTMC 10 (13 AUGUST 2013)
WORKERS COMPENSATION –benefits following death of a worker– applicant
entitled to payment – a “dependent” of the worker – a “member of the family” –
a “domestic partner”
Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) s77
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s169
Social Security Act1991 (Cth)
Family Law Act1975 (Cth)
Domestic Relationship Act 1994 (ACT)
Crellin v Robertson [2004] ACTSC 92; (2004) 32 Fam LR 406
Lynam v Director-General of Social Security (1983) 1 AAR 197
McKenzie v Storer [2007] ACTSC 88
Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [2006] FCA 735; (2006) 151 FCR 546
No. WC 326 of 2012
Chief Magistrate Walker
Magistrates Court of the ACT
Date: 13 August 2013
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE )
)NO. WC 326 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
BETWEEN: KAHLIA BOYD
Applicant
AND: BELCONNEN CONCRETE PTY LTD ATF SPINELLI FAMILY TRUST
Respondent
DECISION
Magistrate:Chief Magistrate Walker
Date:7 August 2013
Place:Canberra
Issue to be determined
The issue to be determined in this application is whether Ms Kahlia Boyd, the applicant, is entitled to lump-sum compensation pursuant to section 77 of the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (‘the Act’).
The law
Section 77 of the Act provides, relevantly, that a dependant of the worker is entitled to a lump sum payment of $150,000 (as CPI indexed). A dependant is defined in the Dictionary to the Act, relevantly, as an individual who was totally or partially dependent on the worker's earnings on the day of the worker's death and who was a member of the worker's family.
Member of the family is defined in the Dictionary to include a domestic partner. The definition of domestic partner provided for in s 169 of the Legislation Act 2001 is applied to this Act. That definition states:
In an Act or statutory instrument, a reference to a person’s "domestic partner" is a reference to someone who lives with the person in a domestic partnership, and includes a reference to a spouse, civil union partner or civil partner of the person.
The section notes that:
The Macquarie Dictionary, (1997) defines spouse as ‘either member of a married pair in relation to the other; one's husband or wife'.
Subsection 2 of s 169 continues:
In an Act or statutory instrument, a domestic partnership is the relationship between 2 people, whether of a different or the same sex, living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.
The following examples are given as indicators to decide whether two people are in a domestic partnership:
the length of their relationship
whether they are living together
if they are living together—how long and under what circumstances they have lived together
whether there is a sexual relationship between them
their degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between or by them
the ownership, use and acquisition of their property, including any property that they own individually
their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
whether they mutually care for and support children
the performance of household duties
the reputation, and public aspects, of the relationship between them
There is a further note to this section which says that:
An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears (see s 126 and s 132).
However, that definition is expressly modified by the Dictionary definition in the Act in that the person must be a worker’s domestic partner when the worker died. This limits the category of persons who can apply for death benefits on the basis of being a domestic partner to such persons who are properly so classified as at the time of the worker’s death. For some laws, having been a domestic partner at some earlier time is sufficient qualification to access a legal entitlement but not so under this Act.
I have been unable to ascertain any reported decision on the application of section 77. Nonetheless, there is significant guidance in the case law as to the approach to be taken to determination of the existence of a domestic partnership. While some caution needs to be exercised in relation to different legislative provisions, the concept, or its like, is considered in various contexts, including Social Security Act1991 (Cth) applications, de facto relationship applications under the Family Law Act1975 (Cth), as well as in workers compensation jurisdictions throughout the country.
Caution needs to be applied, however, when considering what at first blush might be expected to be relevant applications under the Domestic Relationship Act 1994 (ACT). Under that Act, a domestic relationship is broader than a domestic partnership. The breadth of the former was discussed at some length by Stone J in McKenzie v Storer [2007] ACTSC 88. In short, a domestic partnership seems to reflect a marriage-like relationship whilst a domestic relationship seeks to incorporate a much wider variety of relationships within a domestic context. As Crispin J noted in Crellin v Robertson [2004] ACTSC 92; (2004) 32 Fam LR 406 at [24], “a person may have one relationship with a domestic partner, another with an elderly parent whom he or she supports in a nursing home and a third with another parent who lives in a granny flat attached to his or her residence. Yet all might fall within the broad ambit of this definition (that is, of a domestic relationship).” The fact that the legislature has taken a different approach in relation to domestic relationships provides some indication of the parameters of a domestic partnership, if only by way of contradiction.
In Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [2006] FCA 735; (2006) 151 FCR 546, the Court (consisting of Sundberg, Emmett and Siopsis JJ) held that in determining whether, for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), two persons were in a “marriage-like relationship”, regard must be had to the interpersonal relationship as a whole, bearing in mind that consideration must be given to those factors which weigh against a relationship as well as those which weigh in favour of it. The observations of Fitzgerald J in Lynam v Director-General of Social Security (1983) 1 AAR 197 at 200 were cited with approval:
“Each element of a relationship draws its colour and its significance from the other elements, some of which may point in one direction and some in the other. What must be looked at is the composite picture. Any attempt to isolate individual factors and to attribute to them relative degrees of materiality or importance involves a denial of common experience and will almost inevitably be productive of error. The endless scope for differences in human attitudes and activities means that there will be an almost infinite variety of combinations of circumstances which may fall for consideration. In any particular case, it will be a question of fact and degree, a jury question, whether a relationship between two unrelated persons of the opposite sex meets the statutory test.”
Those observations apply equally to this determination.
The evidence
Kahlia Boyd, the applicant, gave evidence regarding her relationship with Ben Catanzariti. I summarise her evidence as follows and interpolate where there is either corroboration or contrary evidence.
Commencement of the relationship
Ms Boyd was born on 9 November 1992 and is currently 20 years old. She met Ben Catanzariti, born 29 December 1990, in or about August 2011. At that time, she was working at her parents’ takeaway food shop in Fyshwick and he was working as a security guard at PJ O’Reilly’s pub in Tuggeranong. Within a week they had exchanged phone numbers and started to catch up as friends. By November 2011, the relationship had become sexual. In Ms Boyd’s words, this is when the “relationship” commenced.
Living together
At the time they met, Ms Boyd was living with her mother and stepfather, Mr Duncan-Lind in Queanbeyan and Mr Catanzariti was lodging at a friend’s home in Wanniassa. About 11 December 2011, Mr Catanzariti started living in a flat he had rented at Henderson Road in Queanbeyan. He was paying rent of $300 a week and as far as Ms Boyd was aware had not signed a formal lease. She was aware that he was renting the flat from a lady called Samantha. Ms Boyd stayed there most nights and by the start of 2012 has completely moved in. By that time all of her possessions, described as her clothing and “products”, were at the flat. Mr Catanzariti also gave her a key in late December 2011.
At the time of the commencement of the relationship Ms Boyd had a learner’s permit to drive. Mr Catanzariti would pick her up from work at her parents’ shop and take her home. If he was working late, he would pick her up from her parents’ house and then they would go home together to the flat.
A series of SMS records were relied upon by Ms Boyd. One of those, dated 1 July 2012, attributed to Mr Catanzariti, and in response to a question from Ms Boyd as to whether her friend could visit stated: “yes that’s okay it’s your house to (sic)”.
Another message from Mr Catanzariti dated 2 July 2012 said: “leaving at 5.30. You be at our house when I get home about 10:30 PM or I pick you up from your mum’s”.
Ms Boyd’s evidence about living at the flat at was contradicted by Samantha Osztrenkovics, landlady and friend of Mr Catanzariti, who gave evidence to the effect that she did not see any female clothing or products at the flat when she visited. Ms Kay Catanzariti, the deceased’s mother, Mr Jack Catanzariti, his brother, and Mr David Williams, a friend of Mr Catanzariti’s, all said the same thing. All of these witnesses appear to have had reason to inspect either the bathroom or Mr Catanzariti’s bedroom, including his wardrobe.
Each of these people stated that they had visited the flat and seen no indication of female occupation. Mr Williams, in particular, stated that he had attended on a least 10 occasions and never seen Ms Boyd there. As to this latter proposition, Ms Boyd stated she had never seen Mr Williams at the flat. She also said that she would frequently go to her parents’ house after work and that Mr Catanzariti would pick her up from there later. Ms Chloe Lavender, a friend of Ms Boyd’s, gave evidence that Mr Williams was Mr Catanzariti’s “drinking buddy” for a few months prior to Mr Catanzariti’s death.
Jack and Kay Catanzariti further stated that there was no sign of Ms Boyd’s occupation of the flat when they attended the day after Mr Catanzariti’s death. Ms Boyd, however, gave corroborated evidence that she removed all of her items prior to Mr Catanzariti’s family arriving. Her evidence is corroborated in that respect by her mother, stepfather and friend, Chloe Lavender.
Shared expenses
Mr Catanzariti continued to pay all the rent after Ms Boyd moved in. Ms Boyd “chipped in” for groceries, gas and electricity bills and occasionally rent. She confirmed that utility bills were not paid directly to the supplier but rather that at times cash was given directly to Mr Catanzariti for this purpose.
Domestic duties
Ms Boyd did most of the household chores, particularly if Mr Catanzariti was working on the weekend. She cleaned the house and the bathroom and vacuumed. She also washed both hers and Mr Catanzariti’s clothes each night. Mr Catanzariti shared the cooking and washing up. This was corroborated by Ms Lavender.
Mr Williams said he saw Mr Catanzariti mopping the floor when he attended to change some tap washers for him.
Continuity of the relationship
Ms Boyd gave evidence that she thought that the relationship was such that, in her words, “we were going to be together for a long time”.
There were periods during which Ms Boyd and Mr Catanzariti “broke up”. Ms Boyd specified a period in April 2012. She indicated that, in her view, this was because Mr Catanzariti’s mother was not accepting of Ms Boyd because of her aboriginality. This break lasted about a week, ending when Mr Catanzariti assured Ms Boyd that her aboriginality was not a concern to him. Ms Boyd gave evidence that she moved out from the flat with the assistance of her friend, Ms Lavender, removing two carloads of items. Ms Lavender also helped Ms Boyd moved back in, both of which are corroborated by Ms Lavender.
Apart from this occasion, Ms Boyd stated that she was at the flat constantly, unless Mr Catanzariti’s parents came to stay, when she would stay at her own parents’ house. When questioned as to a period of separation in late December to January 2012, Ms Boyd stated that this was because Mr Catanzariti had gone back to his family for his 21st birthday and to spend Christmas with them and that they had not broken up over this period. She, on the other hand, adhered to plans she had already made to go to Sydney for New Year’s Eve.
Ms Boyd gave some evidence about her Facebook page. She stated that two days after she commenced a relationship with Mr Catanzariti, she altered her relationship status on Facebook to “in a relationship”. In April 2012, after a period of separation, she altered the relationship status to “single”. She altered it again, next, after Mr Catanzariti passed away providing the following explanation: “because I realised that it was still set as single and I didn’t want people to think that I had changed it because Ben had passed away because everyone knew we were together” .
Ms Osztrenkovics, whilst giving evidence that she was not aware that Ms Boyd was living at the flat and stating that she did not see any of Ms Boyd’s belongings at the flat when she attended for carpet to be laid in January 2012, nonetheless confirmed that she was aware that the relationship had begun initially as a friendship but certainly was more serious by April 2012.
Familial and social involvement
In terms of socialising, Ms Boyd indicated that they rarely went out, usually staying at home together. They were frequently visited by her friend Chloe and Mr Catanzariti’s friend Ronnie. She did not recollect other friends coming over to the flat.
For a period of about three months, as to which dates were not specified, Mr Catanzariti assisted Ms Boyd and her mother in the takeaway shop whilst Ms Boyd’s stepfather was unwell. He also visited Mr Duncan-Lind in hospital.
Ms Boyd and Mr Catanzariti also shared a joint pet, Chopper the pug, purchased in May 2012. This dog was kept at flat except during the day when it was delivered to Mr Duncan-Lund to care for it. That fact was corroborated by Mr Duncan-Lund.
It was put to Ms Boyd that she was not aware that Mr Catanzariti and Mr David Williams were going to travel overseas together. However, when Mr Williams gave that evidence regarding the trip, it was clear that the plan was at discussion point only.
Future intentions
Ms Boyd gave evidence that she and Mr Catanzariti discussed the future together, namely marriage, children and buying a house. These discussions commenced, according to Ms Boyd, in February 2012. She stated that Mr Catanzariti talked about it all the time. She further stated that Mr Catanzariti had spoken to her stepfather about the possibility of them getting married. Mr Duncan-Lind corroborated this.
A letter from Mr Catanzariti to Ms Boyd dated 16 January 2012 evidenced that intention. In this letter he spoke of their relationship and the pain caused by their three weeks apart. He wrote: “As we lay in bed each night I dream of the day I ask you to be my wife. The day I hold you as I slide the ring on your finger as we say our vows. I see you when I’m in pain sickness and happiness your (sic) always with me and you will always hold and have my heart… I know we will have gorgeous kids and that we will be great parents”.
Two cards are also in evidence, one given to Ms Boyd by Mr Catanzariti on Valentine’s Day 2012 and the second given to her in May 2012. The first makes general protestations of romantic love. The second is similar but also incorporates the following words: “I see myself marrying you and one day starting a family of our own. I know that you’re sometimes angry cause (sic) I show you affection and do my best to keep you happy. But I only do it because I love you with my (sic) and want to make you my wife.”
On 20 July 2012, Mr Catanzariti sent photographs of himself to Ms Boyd annotating it as follows: “your sexy man hard at work”. This, of course, was very shortly before his death.
Further corroboration
Ms Lavender, Ms Boyd’s long term friend, corroborated Ms Boyd’s evidence that she and Mr Catanzariti had entered a more intimate relationship as of either October or November 2011. Ms Lavender corroborated the living arrangements for them at the Henderson Road flat. She saw many of Ms Boyd’s personal items at the flat and noted that she and Mr Catanzariti would pay for food together. She observed that Ms Boyd cooked at the premises and that they shared the dishes. She confirmed that she attended the premises weekly, dozens of times in all, up until Mr Catanzariti’s death, including staying over on occasions. Ms Lavender stated that she was often the designated driver of the group when they went out on the weekend, in part because her vehicle carried more than the two occupants that Mr Catanzariti’s could carry. On those occasions, it was her practice to pick up Ms Boyd and Mr Catanzariti at the Henderson Road flat. Indeed Ms Lavender stated that she often got ready at the flat herself using Ms Boyd’s make-up and hair products. Ms Lavender did confirm a break in the relationship in April 2012, helping to move Ms Boyd both in and out. She noted that Mr Catanzariti bought food, clothing and alcohol for Ms Boyd. Ms Lavender confirmed that Ms Boyd had not only clothes and personal items at the flat but also bedding and a slow cooker. Ms Lavender confirmed that Mr Catanzariti drank at both the Walsh’s hotel and the Tourist hotel with Mr Williams but that Ms Boyd would not attend either of those hotels with him. Ms Lavender regularly collected Mr Catanzariti herself from those pubs and took him back to the flat.
Ms Boyd’s evidence was also corroborated by that of her aunt, Ms Rebecca Boyd. She was introduced to Mr Catanzariti at Ms Boyd’s mother’s (Ms Rebecca Boyd’s sister’s) house in November 2011. She gave evidence that Ms Boyd told her that they were in a relationship at that time. She observed that Mr Catanzariti was often at Ms Boyd’s mother’s house, at the family takeaway shop and at family gatherings such as birthdays and Easter. She observed that he was comfortable with the family and helped with work at the shop. She gave evidence that Mr Catanzariti spoke to her about his relationship with Ms Boyd including that he intended to propose marriage to her. He also told her on 6 July 2012 that he was about to start a new job and was hoping to buy an apartment for him and Ms Boyd to live in. Ms Rebecca Boyd confirmed that she had attended at the Henderson Road flat and understood that Ms Boyd was living there. She saw her clothes and shoes, shampoo and conditioner and what she describes as “ladies sanitary things” there.
Ms Marinda Armstrong, fiancée to one of Ms Boyd’s cousins, also gave corroborative evidence as to the relationship. She met Mr Catanzariti at a family function in December 2011. Her observation was that they were in a relationship and “always looking after each other”. She saw them together at a number of family functions. She commented on one in particular, on 23 June 2012, on which she and Mr Catanzariti discussed the future. He indicated that they were looking at buying a house together and wanted to have children. He was making enquiries about the cost of a deposit and the cost of raising children. Ms Armstrong had also visited the flat but only to collect Mr Catanzariti from it. She had never entered the flat. She was aware that Mr Catanzariti had helped Ms Boyd’s stepfather whilst he was sick in hospital.
Mr Robert Duncan-Lund, Ms Boyd’s stepfather, gave evidence corroborating the nature of the relationship. He confirmed that Ms Boyd was living with him and his wife until she moved out to the Henderson Road flat, taking clothing, make-up and essentials with her. Mr Duncan-Lund confirmed that he looked after the dog during the day. He gave evidence that Mr Catanzariti told him that he intended to propose marriage to Ms Boyd in November (and I took that from the evidence to be November 2012), when it was to be Ms Boyd’s birthday. He further stated that he assisted Ms Boyd to move her belongings out of the flat including clothes, dog’s items and other personal items, amounting to two Ford Territory loads after Mr Catanzariti’s death. He confirmed that there had been a short period earlier in the relationship when Ms Boyd had moved back to the family home and stored her clothes in bags in the garage.
Ms Chloe Whybrow gave evidence that she knew Mr Catanzariti from his work as a security guard in Erindale but did not know Ms Boyd and indeed had not met her until these proceedings. She recollected conversations with Mr Catanzariti in which he indicated how happy he was with Ms Boyd and that she did everything for him.
Ms Mary Ward corroborated Ms Boyd’s evidence to some extent also. She worked in a shop opposite Ms Boyd’s parents shop. She got to know Mr Catanzariti through his attendances there. They had in common that they both came from Griffith. She understood that Ms Boyd and Mr Catanzariti were girlfriend and boyfriend and that they were living together.
Further evidence contrary to the existence of a domestic partnership
The evidence received consistently supported the fact that Ms Boyd did not have a great deal to do with Mr Catanzariti’s family during the short period of the relationship. Mr Williams attested to some reluctance on Mr Catanzariti’s part to introduce Ms Boyd to his family in Griffith.
The respondent relied on some of Mr Catanzariti’s bank statements which seem to demonstrate that he was incurring expenditure in Canberra in early January 2012. It was submitted that I should draw an inference from this which I took to be an inference regarding the lack of continuity of the relationship. The evidence of Mrs Kay Catanzariti was that there was a period, until mid-January 2012, when her son was in Griffith. In any event, Ms Boyd had given evidence that she went to Sydney for New Year’s Eve on the understanding that Mr Catanzariti went back to his family home. It is not clear when she or he came back to Canberra. I am simply unable to draw any significant inference from this evidence at all.
Jack Catanzariti gave evidence that when he attended his brother’s flat on one occasion whilst in Canberra for a tennis tournament, Ms Boyd went out to dinner with himself, his brother and their mother. Jack Catanzariti did not see any female clothing or products in the flat, indicating that he had looked fairly extensively through Mr Catanzariti’s room as the latter was inclined to purloin his clothes. He did note, however, that on that occasion Ms Boyd slept in the bed with his brother.
Ms Kay Catanzariti was at pains to minimise the nature of her son’s relationship with Ms Boyd. She stated that she saw no female clothing nor toiletries at her son’s flat when she visited with her husband in November 2011, in February of 2012 or in May of 2012 . She had looked around to check up on her son and see if he needed any particular items, such as socks or underwear. She said she saw nothing female at that time. She said that, unlike some of the girls, he had never referred to Ms Boyd as his girlfriend to her. It was clear from her evidence that she had some concern about what she perceived to be her son’s impulsivity regarding relationships. She conceded that her son had told her that he was “sleeping” with Ms Boyd but not that he had a relationship with her. She was at pains to dismiss Ms Boyd as “just another girl”. Under cross-examination, she admitted that she had made a statutory declaration in relation to a claim for superannuation to the effect that her son had never mentioned a girl by the name of “Kahlia” to her and yet she conceded that in fact he had done so prior to his birthday on 29 December (in evidence she said 2012 but this was clearly in error and should have been a reference to 2011). She repeated that her son was not in a relationship with Ms Boyd and that he had many girls. This was at odds with her evidence that her son had rung her a few times to tell her that the relationship was “broken up”. For reasons which were not apparent, Mrs Catanzariti in giving her evidence demonstrated a marked antipathy towards Ms Boyd.
Some evidence of Mr Catanzariti’s attitude towards Ms Boyd is available not only from the evidence of those who observed their relationship over an extended period but from his cards, letters and telephone communications with her and, significantly, also from the indication he put on an employment questionnaire when he started work with Belconnen Concrete some short period before his death. In this document he nominated Ms Boyd as his emergency contact and described his relationship to her as “wife”.
Mrs Catanzariti was entirely unaware of this indication by her son. That, I am satisfied, strongly evidences that she entirely misapprehended her son’s attitude to his relationship with Ms Boyd.
Assessment of evidence and findings of fact
Ms Boyd presented as a credible witness. Despite being distressed about the matters as to which she was questioned, her evidence was presented without any significant or apparent embellishment and in a matter-of-fact way. The evidence was significantly corroborated by the observations of others and by documentary evidence, largely emanating from Mr Catanzariti himself.
By contrast, the evidence given by Jack and Kay Catanzariti, not parties to this application, was patently hostile towards Ms Boyd. They, along with David Williams, were at pains to minimise the nature of Ms Boyd’s relationship with Mr Catanzariti. Their motivation for doing so is not apparent. It might, to a large extent, reflect their opinion that this was just another in a string of relationships that Mr Catanzariti had been involved in and himself considered serious. It may well have been that, despite clearly being close to his family, Mr Catanzariti either chose not to be completely open with them about this relationship with Ms Boyd or simply did not relay to them the nature of his living and social arrangements in Queanbeyan. There may be other motivations not disclosed by the evidence.
Nonetheless, I am persuaded by the evidence of Ms Boyd, corroborated as detailed above, as to the nature of her relationship with Mr Catanzariti.
I am satisfied that the applicant has established the following facts on the balance of probabilities:
She met Mr Catanzariti toward the end of 2011. They soon became friends and by November 2011 had commenced a sexual and otherwise intimate relationship. As at the date of Mr Catanzariti’s death, their relationship was about eight months in length.
Ms Boyd introduced Mr Catanzariti to her family at the end of 2011 as her boyfriend.
Ms Boyd began staying with Mr Catanzariti at the flat he rented from November 2011. By December 2011, she had a key to the flat and stayed there regularly. By mid January 2012 the Henderson Road flat was her usual address.
Mr Catanzariti mentioned Ms Boyd to his mother by December 2011.
Ms Boyd and Mr Catanzariti spent Christmas and New Year 2011 apart, the former undertaking a prearranged trip to Sydney, the latter returning to his family home for his 21st birthday and New Year. They had cohabited for at least 5 ½ months at the time of Mr Catanzariti’s death.
Ms Boyd was partially financially dependent on Mr Catanzariti as at the date of his death, benefiting from his income as providing accommodation, transport, food and clothing. She contributed on occasions to the finances of the relationship and to this extent the relationship was mutual. There was, however, no significant joint acquisition of property.
On 16 January 2012, Mr Catanzariti wrote of the future with Ms Boyd as his wife and mother to his children.
By February 2012, Mr Catanzariti had introduced Ms Boyd to his mother and brother and had slept the night with her whilst they were present at his flat.
Mr Catanzariti was actively involved with Ms Boyd’s family, both by way of assisting in the family business and attendance at family events. He expressed an intention to marry Ms Boyd to her, her stepfather and other members of the family.
Mr Catanzariti was aware that his mother was concerned about the impulsivity he had demonstrated in past relationships. Whilst close to both his brother and mother, Mr Catanzariti appears not to have been forthcoming in discussing his emotional involvement with Ms Boyd to them.
Mr Catanzariti evinced an intention that Ms Boyd should be perceived as his life partner through his nomination of her as his emergency contact, and his description of her as his wife, in his employment questionnaire at the time he commenced employment with the respondent.
Certainly by April 2012, and until the time of Mr Catanzariti’s death, it was the widely held perception of those who knew Mr Catanzariti in his life in the Canberra area, with the exception of Mr Williams, that he was in a serious relationship with Ms Boyd. This was not altered by the week’s separation they experienced. The public reputation was that they were in a relationship.
Whilst the relationship was of two quite young people, and of short duration, whilst it was volatile and may not have lasted as lifelong or even very long-term relationship, as at the date of Mr Catanzariti’s death that was certainly their stated intention. Their domestic arrangements, consistent with their youth and financial situation, evidenced a shared life and mutual financial, domestic and emotional support as at the time of Mr Catanzariti’s death.
Determination
The above findings clearly support the existence of a domestic partnership between Ms Boyd and Mr Catanzariti as at the date of Mr Catanzariti’s death.
I therefore determine that the applicant is entitled to the payment of a lump sum death benefit pursuant to section 77 of the Workers Compensation Act1951.
I certify that the preceding 54 numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of her Honour, Chief Magistrate Walker.
Associate: S.S.Kemaken
Date: 13 August 2013
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. A. Muller
Solicitor for the Applicant: Slater & Gordon
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. D. Shillington
Solicitor for the Respondent: King & Wood Mallesons
Date of hearing: 10 May 2013; 29 July 2013
Date of judgment: 7 August 2013
1
3
5