Maddox v T L Vegetation Management Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 286

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Maddox v T L Vegetation Management Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] NSWPIC 286
APPLICANT:	Maddox
RESPONDENT:	T L Vegetation Management Pty Ltd & Ors
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
DATE OF DECISION:	20 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (WIMWC Act); claim for benefits in respect of the death of a worker; apportionment of lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) of the WCA Act; together with claim for interest; consideration of who was dependent for support on the worker; TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris, Youseph v Homebush Unit Trust t/as Primo Smallgoods considered; consideration of appropriateness of apportionment agreed between the parties in relation to the lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) of the WCA Act; consideration as to interest awards under section 109 of the WIMWC Act; Pheeney v Doolan (No 2), and Mudgee Explorer Tours Pty Ltd v Clarke considered; Held – no other persons but the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent and the fourth respondent were dependent for support on the worker; apportionment of the lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) as agreed between the parties approved; awards entered in favour of the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent and the fourth respondent in relation to their apportioned entitlements (plus interest) to the lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) of the WCA Act; consent awards also entered in relation to claims pursuant to sections 26 and 28 of the WCA Act.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. That Christian Downes (the worker) died on 9 January 2025 as a result of injury sustained in the course of his employment with the first respondent, and to which that employment was a substantial contributing factor, pursuant to ss 4 and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). 2. That the applicant was dependent on the worker for support in accordance with s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. 3. That the second respondent was dependent on the worker for support in accordance with s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. 4. That the third respondent was dependent on the worker for support in accordance with s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. 5. That the fourth respondent was dependent on the worker for support in accordance with s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. 6. That there were no other persons dependent on the worker for support in accordance with s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. 7. That the first respondent is liable to pay the amount of $938,600 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. 8. That the amount of $938,600 is to be apportioned as follows, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act: (a) applicant – 8% – $75,088; (b) second respondent – 8% – $75,088; (c) third respondent – 8% – $75,088, and (d) fourth respondent – 76% – $713,336. 9. That the first respondent pay interest on…

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 Maddox v T L Vegetation Management 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: [2025] NSWPIC 286
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The decision in Maddox v T L Vegetation Management Pty Ltd concerned a claim for workers' compensation benefits in respect of the death of a worker. The parties involved were the applicant, who was the worker's daughter, and several respondents, including the employer, T L Vegetation Management Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Authority of New South Wales. The primary issue was the determination of who was dependent for support on the deceased worker, and the apportionment of the lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court also considered the claim for interest under section 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

The court examined the legal principles established in TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris and Youseph v Homebush Unit Trust t/as Primo Smallgoods to determine the appropriate dependents. The court concluded that the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent were the only individuals dependent for support on the deceased worker. The court approved the apportionment of the lump sum agreed upon by the parties. In relation to the interest claim, the court referred to Pheeney v Doolan (No 2) and Mudgee Explorer Tours Pty Ltd v Clarke to consider the appropriateness of the interest awards under section 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

The Workers Compensation Authority of New South Wales determined that the apportionment of the lump sum agreed between the parties was approved and entered awards in favour of the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent for their apportioned entitlements (plus interest) to the lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Consent awards were also entered in relation to claims pursuant to sections 26 and 28 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This decision provided clarity on the apportionment of compensation benefits and interest in workers' compensation cases in New South Wales.

Orders