Killoran Agricultural v Ryan - [2021] NSWPIC 17

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Killoran Agricultural v Ryan [2021] NSWPIC 17
APPLICANT:	A I Macdonald, H R Macdonald, J E Macdonald & S M Macdonald t/as Killoran Agricultural
RESPONDENT:	Suzanne Jane Ryan
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Adam Michael Ryan
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Corey Raymond Ryan
FOURTH RESPONDENT:	Cole James Ryan
FIFTH RESPONDENT:	Deidre Amy Briggs
SIXTH RESPONDENT:	Ann Letitia Heath as guardian for Letitia Eileen Ryan
MEMBER:	Anthony Scarcella
DATE OF DECISION:	12 March 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- entitlement to lump sum death claim compensation under section 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act; dependency; TNT Group 4 Pty Ltd v Halioris and Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd considered and applied; Held- the deceased worker died on 13 October 2020 as a result of injuries arising out of or in the course of his employment with the applicant/employer on 13 October 2020; the first respondent was partly dependent for support on the deceased worker at the date of his death; there were no other persons dependent for support on the deceased worker; the applicant/employer is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation under section 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act and the payment of interest under section 109 of the 1998 Act.
DETERMINATONS MADE:	1. The deceased worker, Michael Patrick Ryan, died on 13 October 2020 as a result of injuries arising out of or in the course of his employment with the applicant/employer on 13 October 2020. 2. Suzanne Jane Ryan was partly dependent for support on the deceased worker at the date of his death. 3. There were no other persons dependent for support on the deceased worker. 4. The applicant/employer is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation under section 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the payment of interest under section 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.
ORDERS MADE	1. The applicant/employer’s application to join Deidre Amy Briggs as a party to these proceedings dated 4 March 2021 is granted and the document attached thereto is admitted into evidence. 2. The applicant/employer’s application to join Ann Letitia Heath as guardian for Letitia Eileen Ryan as a party to these proceedings dated 4 March 2021 is granted and the documents attached thereto are admitted into evidence. 3. The lump sum compensation payable by the applicant/employer under section 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in the sum of $834,200 is to be paid to Suzanne Jane Ryan.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The Application in Respect of Death of a Worker (Application) dated 23 December 2020 was filed in the Workers Compensation Commission, now the Workers Compensation Division of the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) by A I Macdonald, H R Macdonald, J E Macdonald and S M Macdonald t/as Killoran Agricultural (the applicant/employer) and relates to the death of Michael Patrick Ryan (the deceased worker).
The deceased worker died on 13 October 2020 as a result of injuries arising out of or in the course of his employment with…

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.

Continue reading Killoran Agricultural v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Killoran Agricultural v Ryan [2021] NSWPIC 17
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 17
Decision Date: 12 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Killoran Agricultural v Ryan, the primary issue before the court was the entitlement of the first respondent to a lump sum death claim compensation under section 25(1)(a) of the relevant workers compensation Act. The deceased worker, who was employed by the applicant/employer, died on 13 October 2020 as a result of injuries sustained in the course of his employment on the same date. The court had to determine whether the first respondent, who was partly dependent for support on the deceased at the time of his death, was eligible for the compensation and the extent of the dependency. Additionally, the court needed to consider if there were any other persons dependent on the deceased for support.

The court examined relevant legal principles and precedents, notably TNT Group 4 Pty Ltd v Halioris and Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd, to assess the criteria for dependency and the conditions under which compensation should be awarded. It was established that the deceased worker had died from injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment, fulfilling one of the statutory requirements for compensation. The court found that the first respondent was partly dependent on the deceased for support at the time of his death and there were no other persons who were dependent on the deceased. Consequently, the applicant/employer was held liable for the payment of the lump sum compensation under section 25(1)(a) of the Act, along with the payment of interest under section 109 of the 1998 Act.

Following its analysis, the court ruled that the applicant/employer was liable to pay the compensation to the first respondent, who was partly dependent on the deceased worker. The decision underscored the importance of establishing dependency and the specific circumstances surrounding the death in determining entitlement to compensation. The court's ruling was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the statutory provisions and relevant case law.

Orders