Legal Research
Cases
Massoudi v Rose Truck Pty Ltd

Massoudi v Rose Truck Pty Ltd

Case [2025] NSWPICPD 2 17 January 2025

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Massoudi v Rose Truck Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 2
APPELLANT:	Nadereh Massoudi
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Rose Truck Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Shahrokh Massoudi
FOURTH RESPONDENT:	Shadeeyeh Massoudi
FIFTH RESPONDENT:	Shabnam Massoudi
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W4433/23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Acting Deputy President Kylie Nomchong SC
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	17 January 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 19 January 2024 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – death of company director who was a worker of the uninsured company – claim by dependants for lump sum death benefits under sections 25 and 26 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – consideration of sections 3(1A) and 4A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and section 4(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – whether dependants’ rights are separate and distinct rights under Part 3, Division 1 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 having regard to s 3(1A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and s 4(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – statutory interpretation – Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Limited v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; 239 CLR 27; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355, and Moorabool and Central Highlands Power Alliance Inc v Minister for Energy and Resources [2024] VSCA 201 applied
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr S Hickey, counsel
Rishworth Dodd & Co
First respondent:
No appearance
Second respondent:
Mr J Fennel, counsel
Hall & Wilcox
Third respondent:
Mr D Hill, solicitor
McNally Jones Staff Lawyers
Fourth respondent:
Mr G Watson, solicitor
Grieve Watson Kelly Lawyers
Fifth respondent:
Mr I Roche, solicitor
Ian Roche Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Massoudi v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (icare) [2024] NSWPIC 26
MEMBER:	Mr G Whiffin
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	19 January 2024

INTRODUCTION

The Member found that the claims of a deceased worker’s wife and children (who were dependants at the time of death) were not maintainable by reason of the operation of ss 3(1A) and 4A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) and s 4(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) because the deceased worker was a director of the employing company at the time of his death and the employing company was uninsured for its liabilities under the 1987 Act.
This appeal is directed to whether the Member properly construed those statutory provisions.

BACKGROUND

Mr Farough Massoudi (the deceased worker) was the owner/operator of a trucking business called Rose Truck Pty Limited (the Company). He was the sole director and an employee of the Company.
Pursuant to s 155 of the 1987 Act, it was (and is) compulsory for an employer (other than a self-insurer) to obtain and maintain a policy of insurance that complied with Part 7, Division 1 of the 1987…

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 Massoudi v Rose Truck Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Massoudi v Rose Truck Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 2
Case: [2025] NSWPICPD 2
Decision Date: 17 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Massoudi v Rose Truck Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs sought lump sum death benefits under sections 25 and 26 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, following the death of Mr Massoudi, who was a director of Rose Truck Pty Ltd, an uninsured company. The dispute centred on whether Mr Massoudi qualified as a worker for the purposes of the Act and if his dependants could claim the benefits despite the company's lack of insurance. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the rights of Mr Massoudi's dependants to claim death benefits were separate and distinct under Part 3, Division 1 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, considering sections 3(1A) and 4A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and section 4(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The court examined the statutory interpretation of these provisions, drawing on precedents such as Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Limited v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; 239 CLR 27, Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355, and Moorabool and Central Highlands Power Alliance Inc v Minister for Energy and Resources [2024] VSCA 201.

The court concluded that the rights of the dependants to claim lump sum death benefits were indeed separate and distinct, as per the statutory framework. This determination was based on the language of sections 3(1A) and 4A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and section 4(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, which were interpreted to allow for such claims independently of the company's insurance status. Consequently, the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefits sought.

The court's final orders reflected its reasoning, confirming the dependants' entitlement to the lump sum death benefits under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The uninsured status of Rose Truck Pty Ltd did not bar the claim, as the statutory provisions provided a clear pathway for the dependants to receive the benefits.

Orders