Legal Research
Cases
Quinnell v Mars Maintenance Pty Ltd

Quinnell v Mars Maintenance Pty Ltd

Case [2021] NSWPIC 452 11 November 2021

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Quinnell v Mars Maintenance Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 452
APPLICANT:	Ruby Rose Quinnell
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Mars Maintenance Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Lucy Jane Quinnell
MEMBER:	Glenn Capel
DATE OF DECISION:	11 November 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Death claim; deceased committed suicide; dispute as to whether there was a causal connection between the deceased’s back injury and his depressive state, and whether the deceased’s death was caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury; determination of dependency, apportionment and payment of death benefit; Raulston v Toll Pty Ltd, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Ltd, Holdlen Pty Ltd v Walsh discussed and applied; Held - causal connection established; deceased’s death was not caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury; apportionment and orders for payment of the death benefit and funeral expenses.
1. The deceased worker, Dean Gregory Quinnell, died on 25 October 2018 as a result of injury sustained during the course of his employment with the respondent on or about 31 August 2018. 2. Ruby Rose Quinnell and Lucy Jane Quinnell were partly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 3. The deceased had no other persons dependent on him. 4. The deceased’s death was not caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury. 5. The first respondent is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation and funeral expenses.
ORDERS MADE:	6. The lump sum compensation of $791,850 payable pursuant to section 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 is to be apportioned in accordance with section 29 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 as follows: (a) $395,925 to Ruby Rose Quinnell, and (b) $395,925 to Lucy Jane Quinnell. 7. The first respondent to pay lump sum compensation pursuant to section 85A(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 to the dependants as follows: (a) $395,925 to Ruby Rose Quinnell, and (b) $395,925 to Lucy Jane Quinnell. 8. The first respondent to pay the applicant $7,140 in respect of funeral expenses pursuant to section 26 of the Workers Compensation Act1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The deceased worker, Dean Gregory Quinnell, was 54 years old at the time that he suffered an injury to his back on or about 31 August 2018 in the course of his employment as a carpenter with Mars Building Pty Ltd (the first respondent). He consulted his general practitioner, Dr Hamilton, on 10 September 2018 and he was certified unfit for work from
10 September 2018 until he was cleared to return to his pre-injury duties on 9 October 2018. On his return to work, he was allocated light work as a traffic controller and spotted abseilers [sic].
Liability was accepted by Employers Mutual Ltd (the insurer), and payments of weekly compensation and medical expenses were made from 10 September 2018 until
8 October 2018. The deceased died on 25 October 2018 as a result of injuries sustained when he jumped or fell from a building at his place of work.

The solicitor for Ruby Rose Quinnell (the applicant)…

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 Quinnell v Mars Maintenance Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Quinnell v Mars Maintenance Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 452
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 452
Decision Date: 11 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quinnell brought a claim against Mars Maintenance Pty Ltd in relation to the death of his wife, who committed suicide. The deceased had sustained a back injury at work, and Quinnell argued that this injury contributed to her depressive state, which ultimately led to her suicide. The dispute centred on whether there was a causal connection between the injury and her depression, and if her death was an intentional self-inflicted injury. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine the existence of a causal connection between the deceased's back injury and her depressive state, and whether her death was caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the dependency of the deceased on the deceased's income, and the apportionment of the death benefit in light of these findings.

The court held that there was a causal connection between the deceased's back injury and her depressive state. The court found that her death was not caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury, and that she was dependent on the deceased's income. Apportionment of the death benefit was conducted, and the court ordered the payment of the death benefit and funeral expenses to Quinnell. The court applied the principles from Raulston v Toll Pty Ltd, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Ltd, and Holdlen Pty Ltd v Walsh in reaching its decision.

The final orders included the determination that there was a causal connection between the deceased's back injury and her depressive state, and that her death was not caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury. The court also found the deceased to be dependent on the deceased's income, and ordered the payment of the death benefit and funeral expenses to Quinnell. The apportionment of the death benefit was conducted in accordance with the evidence presented.

Orders