Mananquil v Truserv Pty Limited & Ors - [2024] NSWPIC 28

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Mananquil v Truserv Pty Limited & Ors [2024] NSWPIC 28
APPLICANT:	Girlie Mananquil
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Truserv Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Gurveer Singh
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Ishleen Singh
FOURTH RESPONDENT:	Manmohan Singh
FIFTH RESPONDENT:	Amrinder Singh
SIXTH RESPONDENT:	Harmeet Singh
SEVENTH RESPONDENT:	Jasmeen Kaur
EIGHTH RESPONDENT:	Ekempreet Singh Sahni
NINTH RESPONDENT:	Gurjot Kaur
TENTH RESPONDENT:	Arjunpal Singh Sahni
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	Josephine Bamber
DATE OF DECISION:	23 January 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; death claim; heart attack injury; issues as to whether the deceased was a deemed worker of the first respondent; whether the first respondent has a liability to the dependents of the deceased under section 20; whether section 4A precludes payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased in relation to any liability of the first respondent and whether section 9B precludes payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased; Held – in relation to deemed worker issue, Morgan v 45 Flers Avenue Pty Ltd applied and finding deceased not a deemed worker; in relation to section 20, issue Shao Wen Zheng v Guo Yong Yang & Ors applied and inference drawn that the deceased was an employed working director of his uninsured company, Devman Logistics Pty Ltd; finding made Devman Logistics Pty Ltd was uninsured and had contracted with the first respondent to supply the driving services of the deceased; finding made that the first respondent was liable to pay compensation as a section 20 principal; in relation to section 4A issue, Hadfields Steel Works v Meyer and Sinanian v Eks Carpentry Ltd and Anor distinguished and finding section 4A did not apply to liability of a section 20 principal; in relation to section 9B issue, Da Silva v Secretary, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation, Renew God’s Program Pty Ltd v Kim and UPVC Window Solutions Pty Ltd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer applied; finding made that the nature of the employment concerned gave rise to a significantly greater risk of the deceased work suffering the injury than had he not been employed in employment of that nature, such as sedentary work.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Pursuant to s 20 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 the first respondent is liable to pay compensation in respect to the death of Harjinder Singh on 20 January 2021. 2. Section 9B of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 does not preclude the payment of compensation to the dependents of Harjinder Singh. 3. The matter is listed for a preliminary conference at a date to be appointed to deal with any issues relating to dependency, apportionment, interest and fund management.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 20 January 2021 Harjinder Singh (the deceased) was a multi combination line haul driver of a Ken Worth K200 vehicle owned by Truserv Pty Ltd, the first respondent, and was making a delivery to a site run by Real Pet Food in Dubbo. He collapsed at that site, suffering a “heart attack…

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 Mananquil v Truserv Pty Limited & Ors 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 28
Decision Date: 23 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mananquil v Truserv Pty Limited & Ors involved a claim for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 following the death of the deceased from a heart attack. The deceased had worked as a driver for Truserv Pty Limited, and the claim was made by his dependents. The central issue was whether the deceased was considered a worker under the Act, specifically if he was a deemed worker of Truserv Pty Limited, and whether that company had a liability to the dependents under section 20 of the Act. Additionally, the court had to determine if sections 4A and 9B of the Act precluded compensation to the dependents in relation to Truserv Pty Limited's liability.

The court examined the relationship between the deceased and his company, Devman Logistics Pty Ltd, concluding that he was an employed working director and that the company was uninsured. It was determined that Devman Logistics Pty Ltd had contracted with Truserv Pty Limited to provide the driving services of the deceased. The court held that Truserv Pty Limited was liable to pay compensation as a principal under section 20 of the Workers Compensation Act. The court distinguished cases that would have applied section 4A to preclude compensation and found that section 4A did not apply to the liability of a section 20 principal. Furthermore, the court found that section 9B did not preclude compensation because the nature of the deceased’s employment significantly increased the risk of the injury compared to sedentary work.

Based on these findings, the court concluded that Truserv Pty Limited was liable to compensate the dependents of the deceased for the heart attack injury that led to his death. The court ordered Truserv Pty Limited to pay compensation to the dependents, finding that the nature of the deceased's employment was a critical factor in the risk of the injury. This decision underscored the importance of the relationship between the employer and the deceased's company, as well as the specific provisions of the Workers Compensation Act in determining liability and compensation.

Orders