Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:		Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd [2011] NSWWCCPD 6
FIRST APPELLANT:		Gurmeet Kaur
SECOND APPELLANT:		Babaljeet Kaur
FIRST RESPONDENT:		Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:		Harbendar Kaur Gurden Singh
THIRD RESPONDENT:		Darveen Kaur Sandhu
FOURTH RESPONDENT:		Rashveen Kaur Sandhu
INSURER:		Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER:		A1-4473/10
ARBITRATOR:	Mr P Sweeney
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:		10 November 2010
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:		4 February 2011
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Sections 25 and 26 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; apportionment between dependants of deceased worker; s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, discretion to apportion interest
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		President Judge Keating
HEARING:		On the papers
REPRESENTATION:		Appellants:	Paramount Lawyers
First Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Second, Third & Fourth Respondents:	Brydens Law Office
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:		The orders in paragraphs 1(a), (b) and (c) of the Arbitrator’s determination of 10 November 2010 are unchanged. However, for clarity and simplicity, the whole of paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 of the Arbitrator’s determination of 10 November 2010 are revoked and the following orders are made: 1. Pursuant to s 29 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the compensation paid by the first respondent to the Public Trustee shall be apportioned as follows: (a)  Gurmeet Kaur              $ 35,000 (b)  Babaljeet Kaur             $ 30,000 (c)  Rashveen Kaur Sandhu $ 35,000 (d)  Darveen Kaur Sandhu   $ 30,000 (e)  Harbendar Kaur       Gurden Singh                 $177,100 1(A).  All interest accrued from the investment of the lump sum since 17 June 2008 be distributed between the abovementioned dependants on a pro rata basis according to their proportionate entitlement to the lump sum. 1(B). Leave is granted to the parties to re-apply in the event that further orders are required to give effect to the decision in respect of interest. 3.       The first respondent is to pay the costs of the applicants and the second and fourth respondents. All other Orders in the Certificate of Determination are confirmed. The first respondent is to pay the costs of the first and second appellants and the second, third and fourth respondents to the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

1. Tek Singh Dhillon (the deceased worker) was employed by the first respondent, Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd (Thales), as an electrician. On 20 December 2005, the deceased worker was a pedestrian crossing Victoria Road at Rydalmere when he was struck by a motor vehicle and fatally injured. At the time of his death, the deceased worker was 57 years of age.

2. The first respondent to the appeal, Thales, does not dispute that the dependants of the deceased are entitled to compensation pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

3. The dispute before the Commission concerned the apportionment of the lump sum compensation between a number of the deceased worker’s alleged dependants.

4. The deceased worker was first married to Narindar Kaur on a date…