Richards v Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWPICPD 37

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Richards v Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPICPD 37
First APPELLANT:	Jye Daniel Richards
Second appellant:	Toby Aaron Richards
first RESPONDENT:	Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Kylie-Anne Richards
INSURER:	Employers Mutual NSW Limited
FILE NUMBERs:	A1-W3323/21; A2-W3323/21
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	12 September 2022
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 16 December 2021 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Death of a worker – s 25(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) – payment of weekly compensation to a student over the age of 16 years – whether dependants who were engaged in apprenticeships were students as defined by s 25(5) of the 1987 Act – alleged failure to refer to and deal with submissions made – Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited v Narellan Pools Pty Limited [2011] FCAFC 7; Wang v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWCA 263 applied – alleged failure to provide reasons – whether a proper application of the principles of construction – Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) [2009] HCA 41 applied
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	First Appellant:
Mr Andrew Parker, counsel
Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers
Second Appellant:
Ms B Santoro, solicitor
Slater & Gordon Lawyers
First Respondent:
Mr S Grant, counsel
Hall & Willcox
Second Respondent:
Ms T Danjoux, solicitor
Marsdens Law Group
DECISION UNDER APPEAL
MEMBER:	Mr P Sweeney
DATE OF Member’s DECISION:	16 December 2021

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

These proceedings concern a claim brought by Jye Richards (the first appellant) and Toby Richards (the second appellant) for weekly compensation in respect of the death of their father, who died on 1 November 2018. The deceased was employed by Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd (the first respondent) at the time of his death. Both appellants were under the age of 21 and undertaking apprenticeships in electrotechnology at the time of their father’s death. The first appellant was apprenticed to Jade Electrical Pty Ltd and the second appellant was apprenticed to the first respondent.
The wife of the deceased, Ms Kylie-Anne Richards, brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission), claiming the lump sum death benefit provided for in s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), together with interest on the lump sum. The appellants were joined as parties to the proceedings as they were also dependant on the deceased at the date of death and were entitled to a proportion of the lump sum benefit.
The appellants additionally asserted that they were entitled to weekly payments of compensation on the basis that they were students under the age of 21 for the purpose of s 25(1)(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act in accordance with the definition of “student” contained in s…

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 Richards v Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Richards v Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPICPD 37
Case: [2022] NSWPICPD 37
Decision Date: 12 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Richards v Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the eligibility of weekly compensation payments to a student over the age of 16 years, following the death of a worker. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The deceased worker had been in the process of completing an apprenticeship and the question arose whether the dependants who were engaged in apprenticeships qualified as students under section 25(5) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court was required to determine whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the term "student" in the context of the legislation, and whether the lower court had adequately referred to and dealt with the submissions made by the parties. The court also needed to ascertain whether the lower court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions was in accordance with the principles of construction, and if the lower court had provided sufficient reasons for its decision.

The court found that the lower court had not properly applied the principles of statutory interpretation, specifically by not referring to and dealing with the relevant submissions, and by not providing adequate reasons for its decision. The court held that the lower court had failed to apply the correct approach in interpreting the statutory provisions, as established in Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited v Narellan Pools Pty Limited and Wang v State of New South Wales. The court also found that the lower court's approach to statutory interpretation did not align with the principles established in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority and Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the lower court, and remitted the matter back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's reasoning. The lower court was directed to provide detailed reasons for its decision, taking into account the correct approach to statutory interpretation and the relevant submissions made by the parties.

Orders