Mepham v Raymond Harold Mepham - [2025] NSWPIC 311

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Mepham v Raymond Harold Mepham & Ors [2025] NSWPIC 311
APPLICANT:	Elizabeth Mepham
RESPONDENT:	Raymond Harold Mepham
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Daniel Mepham
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Alexandra Mepham
MEMBER:	Senior Member Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	1 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum death benefit and interest; first respondent, the father of the deceased, disputed that the deceased was a worker or deemed worker and that the injury arose out of or in the course of employment; first respondent was deceased when the claim was made; deceased had previously been paid in cash or kind for work on first respondent’s property; no evidence of payments to deceased for some years prior to deceased’s death; concession by applicant that the evidence was “murky” and the claim was not a “lay down misère”; consideration of Jones v Dunkel, Luxton v Vines, Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales and Flounders v Miller; Held – evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the deceased was a worker or deemed worker or that the injury arose out of or in the course of employment; award for the first respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. There is an award for the first respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In these reasons, I will refer to members of the Mepham family by their given names, to avoid confusion, and meaning no disrespect.
Mr Kevin Mepham (Kevin) died on 4 June 2015.
The applicant, Ms Elizabeth Mepham (Elizabeth), is Kevin’s widow. The second respondent, Mr Daniel Mepham (Daniel) and the third respondent, Ms Alexandra Mepham (Alexandra) are the children of the marriage.
The first respondent, Mr Raymond Harold Mepham (Raymond/Ray), who is alleged to have been Kevin’s employer, was Kevin’s father.
By letter dated 24 October 2023, Elizabeth’s solicitors made on Insurance and Care NSW (iCare) a claim pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for the lump sum death benefit of $524,000.
On 13 March 2024, iCare issued the applicant with a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).
ICare maintained that the evidence did not establish that Kevin was a “worker” within the definition of “worker” in s 4 of the 1998 Act; or that Kevin was deemed by any provision in Schedule 1 to the Act to have been a “worker” employed by the first respondent.
If Kevin was a “worker” employed by the first respondent, iCare disputed that the evidence established that the injury that resulted in his death arose out of or in the course of the alleged employment, as required by s 4 of the 1987 Act; or, if it did, that the alleged employment was a substantial contributing factor to that injury, as required by s 9A of the Act.
By letter dated 25 November 2024, the applicant’s solicitors requested on her behalf that iCare review its decision to dispute…

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 Mepham v Raymond Harold Mepham

Details

AGLC: Mepham v Raymond Harold Mepham [2025] NSWPIC 311
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 311
Decision Date: 1 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mepham v Raymond Harold Mepham, the applicant, the estate of the deceased, sought a lump sum death benefit and interest under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The first respondent, who was the father of the deceased, contested the claim on two primary grounds: whether the deceased was a worker or a deemed worker, and if the injury that led to the death arose out of or in the course of employment. The first respondent had passed away during the pendency of the claim. The deceased had been paid in cash or kind for work on the first respondent’s property, but there was no evidence of payments for some years before the deceased's death. The applicant conceded that the evidence was unclear and that the claim was not straightforward.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the deceased qualified as a worker or a deemed worker and whether the injury was work-related. The court had to consider relevant legal precedents, including Jones v Dunkel, Luxton v Vines, Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales, and Flounders v Miller, to assist in resolving these questions. The court found that the evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the deceased was a worker or a deemed worker or that the injury arose out of or in the course of employment.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory definitions and the necessity for clear evidence to meet the burden of proof. Given the lack of substantial evidence to support the claim, the court held that the applicant's claim was not substantiated. Consequently, the award was made in favour of the first respondent.

Orders