Richards v Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 524

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Richards v Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 524
APPLICANT:	Kylie-Anne Richards
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Jye Daniel Richards
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Toby Arron Richards
MEMBER:	Paul Sweeney
DATE OF DECISION:	16 December 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Death claim where primary liability accepted by employer; apportionment between widow and children of the deceased; consideration of whether sons of the deceased who were electrical apprentices fell within the definition of student in section 25 (5) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 so as to be entitled to a weekly payment; Held - that they were not receiving a full-time education at a school, college or university at the relevant time; award of interest pursuant to section 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 at the rate of 2.5% from the date of claim.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Daniel Richards (the deceased) died of injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on 1 November 2018. 2. At the date of his death his wife Kylie-Anne Richards and sons Jye Daniel Richards and Toby Arron Richards were dependent on him for support. 3. The evidence establishes that there was no other person dependent upon the deceased for support at the date of his death. 4. At the date of death of the deceased the compensation payable in respect of the death of a worker pursuant to s 25 (1) (a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) was the sum of $798,100. 5. Pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act apportion the lump sum as to 80% to Kylie-Anne Richards and 10% to each of the sons of the deceased, Jye Daniel Richards and Toby Arron Richards. 6. Determine that the second and third respondents were not students within the definition of that word contained in s 25(5) of the 1987 Act. 7. Pursuant to s 26 of the 1987 Act the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of the deceased’s funeral expenses in the sum of $14,000 paid by her on 14 October 2021. 8. Order the first respondent to pay the applicant lump sum compensation of $638,480 and reimbursement of funeral expenses of $14,300. 9. Order the first respondent to pay the sum of $79,810 to the second respondent. 10. Order the first respondent to pay the sum of $79,810 to the third respondent. 11. Order the first respondent to pay interest pursuant to s109 of the Work Place Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 at the rate of 2.5% on the lump sum compensation from 7 January 2020 and on the funeral expenses from 15 October 2021 to date of payment of the compensation. 12. Liberty to apply in respect of the mathematics in the above orders.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Daniel Richards (the deceased) died as a result of a myocardial infarction on 1 November 2018. At the time of death, his wife (the applicant), who…

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 [2021] NSWPIC 524
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 524
Decision Date: 16 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Richards v Macarthur Electrical Connection Services Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers' compensation following the death of an employee, with the employer accepting primary liability. The dispute centred on the apportionment of the compensation payment between the deceased's widow and her children, as well as the eligibility of the children for a weekly payment under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the sons of the deceased, who were electrical apprentices, qualified as students under section 25(5) of the Act, thereby entitling them to a weekly payment. The court's reasoning focused on whether the sons were receiving full-time education at a school, college, or university, which was a critical criterion for student status under the Act.

The court held that the sons were not receiving a full-time education at a school, college, or university at the relevant time. This conclusion was based on the nature of their apprenticeship training, which did not meet the statutory definition of full-time education. Consequently, the sons were not entitled to the weekly payment intended for students. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of interest on the compensation claim, awarding interest pursuant to section 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 at the rate of 2.5% from the date of the claim. This decision ensured that the widow received interest on the compensation due to her from the date the claim was initiated.

In summary, the court ruled that the sons of the deceased were not eligible for the weekly student payment under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, as they were not enrolled in full-time education at an educational institution. Furthermore, the court ordered interest on the compensation claim at the specified rate, providing a clear resolution to the issues presented in the case. The final orders reflected the court's determinations on both the apportionment of compensation and the entitlement to interest.

Orders