Prysmian Australia Pty Limited v Fan

Case [2022] NSWPIC 406


CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 

CITATION:

Prysmian Australia Pty Limited v Fan [2022] NSWPIC 406

APPLICANT: Prysmian Australia Pty Limited
RESPONDENT: Xiaomu Fan
MEMBER: Elizabeth Beilby
DATE OF DECISION: 22 July 2022

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Lump sum death benefit; No other persons identified as dependant except the respondent. 

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

The Commission determines:

1.     I find that the respondent was dependent for support upon the deceased, Qi Zhao, at the date of his death.

2.     There was no other person who was dependent upon the deceased at the date of death.

3. The lump sum benefit payable in accordance with section 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as of the date of death was $849,300.

4. The lump sum of $849,300 is to be paid directly to the respondent pursuant to s 85A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Qi Zhao (the deceased) died on 2 December 2021. The employer (the applicant) has admitted liability in respect of the death and is liable to pay compensation pursuant to s 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) (the lump sum death benefit).

  2. The only substantive issue for determination is the question of dependency and any apportionment of the death benefit

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

  1. The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:

    (a)    dependency at the time of death, and

    (b)    apportionment of the lump sum death benefit.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

  1. The claim was listed in the Personal Injury Commission for a telephone conference on 22 July 2022. The parties were able to agree to a proposed resolution of the matter at that time.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

  1. The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and taken into account in making this determination:

    (a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, and

    (b)    Reply to the Application to Resolve a Dispute.

Dependency

  1. A dependent is defined in section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to include persons who were “wholly or in part dependent for support on the worker at the time of the worker’s death”.

  2. A reasonable expectation that the deceased would provide future support can satisfy the concept of dependency.[1]

    [1] TNT Group 4 Pty Ltd v Halioris (1987) 8 NSWLR 486 at [490].

  3. The parties have filed statements to support their applications in this matter. I will now briefly outline the relationship those parties had with the deceased.

  4. Xiamomu Fan, was the wife of the deceased. She has provided a statement dated 26 May 2022. The statement clearly outlines the circumstances of her dependency as that date of death. 

  5. One child was born from the marriage in 1992, namely Jiuzhou Zhao ( Mike). Mr Zhao has provided a statement dated 26 May 2022 and doesn’t wish to be classed as either totally or partially dependent upon the deceased.

  6. There is no evidence before me of any other person who was partially or fully dependent upon the deceased and wishes to make a relevant claim.

  7. The lump sum benefit should therefore be paid directly to the respondent.


Details
AGLC
Prysmian Australia Pty Limited v Fan [2022] NSWPIC 406
Case
[2022] NSWPIC 406
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prysmian Australia Pty Limited contested the decision of the Workers’ Ombudsman regarding a claim for a lump sum death benefit made by Fan, the respondent, who is the son of the deceased worker. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue the court had to address was whether the respondent was a dependant of the deceased worker, entitling him to the claimed death benefit. The court was also required to determine the extent of the respondent's dependency on the deceased worker and whether any other individuals were identified as dependants.

The court considered the definition of "dependant" under the relevant legislation, which includes a person who is wholly or mainly dependent on the deceased for support. The court examined the evidence presented, including the financial and emotional reliance of the respondent on the deceased worker. The court also assessed whether the respondent was the sole identified dependant. The court found that no other persons were identified as dependants, and the evidence supported the respondent's claim of dependency.

Upon evaluating the evidence and legal principles, the court concluded that the respondent was indeed a dependant of the deceased worker, and there were no other identified dependants. The court upheld the decision of the Workers’ Ombudsman, finding that the respondent was entitled to the lump sum death benefit. The decision affirmed the respondent's dependency status and the absence of other dependants.

The court ordered that Prysmian Australia Pty Limited pay the lump sum death benefit to Fan, the son of the deceased worker, in accordance with the Workers’ Ombudsman’s decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.