Legal Research
Cases
McGrath v P.m Electric Pty Ltd

McGrath v P.m Electric Pty Ltd

Case [2021] NSWPIC 174 8 June 2021

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	McGrath v P.M Electric Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 174
APPLICANT:	Nicole McGrath
FIRST RESPONDENT:	P.M Electric Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Taleya Amelia McGrath
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Kayden Charles McGrath
MEMBER:	Catherine McDonald
DATE OF DECISION:	8 June 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Claim for the death benefit and expenses under section 28 of the 1998 Act; worker died on a trip to Singapore funded by his employer for team building and to reward staff; course of employment- Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited, Comcare v PVYW and Pioneer Studios v Hills; substantial contributing factor - Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific and Roncevich v Repatriation Commission; Held- worker was in the course of employment but employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Award for the first respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Nicholas McGrath died on 21 September 2019 whilst on a trip to the Formula One Grand Prix in Singapore which was funded by his employer P.M. Electric Pty Limited.
The trip was organised by P.M. Electric as a reward for Mr McGrath and others for their hard work and the company paid for their airfares, accommodation, Grand Prix three day pass and travel insurance. Each was paid a $240 per day as a meal allowance. They were paid wages and not required to take annual leave.

His wife, Nicole McGrath claims the death benefit under s 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) together with the expenses of transporting Mr McGrath’s body to Australia under s 28. There is no dispute that Ms McGrath and her children, Taleya and Kayden, were dependent on Mr McGrath at the date of his death.
P.M. Electric’s insurer disputed the claim on the basis that Mr McGrath’s death did not result from an injury which arose out of or in the course of his employment and that employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The claim was listed for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing by video on 16 April 2021. Mr Hallion of counsel appeared for Ms McGrath, Ms Goodman of counsel appeared for P.M. Electric, Mr Morgan appeared for Taleya and Mr Gaitanis appeared for Kayden.
Only Mr Hallion made oral submissions on 16 April and a direction was made for the remainder of submissions to be made in writing. Submissions were made in accordance with the orders as amended.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
The representatives for Ms McGrath and the children agreed that if I was to…

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 McGrath v P.m Electric Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: McGrath v P.M Electric Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 174
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 174
Decision Date: 8 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McGrath v P.m Electric Pty Ltd involved a claim for the death benefit and expenses under section 28 of the 1998 Act. The worker had died on a trip to Singapore, which was funded by his employer for team building and as a reward for staff. The nature of the dispute was whether the worker was in the course of employment at the time of his death and if the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the worker was in the course of employment at the time of the incident and if the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The court considered the relevant cases such as Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited, Comcare v PVYW, and Pioneer Studios v Hills to determine if the worker was in the course of employment. To determine if employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, the court referred to Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific and Roncevich v Repatriation Commission. The court needed to balance the factors of the employer's involvement in the trip against the worker's personal activities during the trip.

The court found that the worker was in the course of employment during the trip, as the employer had funded the trip for team building and as a reward for staff. However, the court found that employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The court held that the worker's death was due to his personal activities, which were not related to his employment. The court relied on the cases of Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific and Roncevich v Repatriation Commission to determine that the employer was not liable for the death benefit and expenses. The appeal was dismissed, and the award for the respondent was upheld.

In conclusion, the court found that the worker was in the course of employment during the trip to Singapore, but employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The court held that the employer was not liable for the death benefit and expenses under section 28 of the 1998 Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the award for the respondent was upheld.

Orders