| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | ||
| CITATION: | Richardson v DF Haulage Pty Ltd [2018] NSWWCCPD 28 | |
| APPELLANTS: | Brenda Richardson (First Appellant) Kacey Richardson (Second Appellant) Joshua Thomas Richardson (Third Appellant) | |
| RESPONDENT: | DF Haulage Pty Ltd | |
| INSURER: | AAI Ltd trading as GIO – Agent for the NSW WorkCover Scheme | |
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-4790/17 | |
| ARBITRATOR: | Ms D Moore | |
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 23 February 2018 | |
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 12 July 2018 | |
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; Intention to create a legal relationship; application of Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8; 209 CLR 95, Ashton v Pratt [2015] NSWCA 12, Vacik Distributors v Kelly (1995) 12 NSWCCR 30 | |
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Deputy President Elizabeth Wood | |
| HEARING: | On the papers | |
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellants: | Beilby Poulden Costello Lawyers |
| Respondent: | Hicksons | |
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1. The pleadings in matter number 4790/17 are amended to delete “The Estate of the Late Anthony Paul Richardson” wherever it appears. 2. The pleadings in matter number 4790/17 are further amended to nominate Brenda Richardson as the First Applicant, Kacey Richardson as the Second Applicant and Joshua Thomas Richardson as the Third Applicant, wherever they appear. 3. The Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 23 February 2018 is confirmed. | |
INTRODUCTION
Brenda Richardson, Kacey Richardson and Joshua Thomas Richardson (the appellants) claimed lump sum compensation pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) together with funeral expenses pursuant to s 26 of the 1987 Act in respect of their deceased husband and father, Anthony Paul Richardson.
Mr Richardson suffered severe injuries on 14 December 2014, when he was leaning over the wheel of a Kenworth prime mover while the cabin of the prime mover was raised and tilted forward. Mr Richardson became pinned between the cabin and the wheel when the cabin dropped down onto him. Mr Richardson died as a result of those injuries on 16 December 2014.
The prime mover was owned by DF Haulage Pty Ltd (the respondent) and was parked on the property of Rocco Fabiano, a director of the respondent, at the time of the incident.
The claim for compensation was disputed in a notice issued pursuant to s 74 and dated 18 November 2015. The respondent disputed Mr Richardson was a worker as defined within s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). It also disputed that Mr Richardson was a “deemed worker” within the meaning of cl 2 of Sch 1 of the 1998 Act. In the alternative, it disputed that Mr Richardson was in the course of his employment when he suffered the injuries causing death.
The dispute came to arbitration on 14 December 2017. In view of time constraints the Arbitrator heard submissions limited to the issues expressed in the s 74 notice and foreshadowed a potential telephone conference to deal with the apportionment of any…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Richardson v DF Haulage Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] NSWWCCPD 28
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs had the standing to bring the claim after the death of Anthony Richardson and whether the intention to create a legal relationship existed between the parties. The primary issue was whether the family members could proceed with the claim as beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate. The court also needed to examine the nature of the relationship between the parties to decide if it warranted the application of the Ermogenous principle in determining the status of the deceased’s family members as potential beneficiaries.
The court ruled that the pleadings in the matter must be amended to reflect the correct parties involved in the dispute. It found that Brenda Richardson, Kacey Richardson, and Joshua Thomas Richardson should be identified as the applicants instead of the deceased’s estate. The court confirmed that the family members could proceed with the claim as beneficiaries of Anthony Richardson’s estate. The reasoning was based on the application of the Ermogenous principle and relevant case law, which clarified the family’s right to bring the claim. The Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination was also confirmed, upholding the decision of the arbitrator.
The court’s final orders included the amendment of the pleadings to correctly identify the parties and confirm the Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination. This ensured that the family members of the deceased had the proper standing to continue with the claim, aligning with the statutory and legal principles applied in the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The pleadings in matter number 4790/17 are amended to delete “The Estate of the Late Anthony Paul Richardson” wherever it appears.
2. The pleadings in matter number 4790/17 are further amended to nominate Brenda Richardson as the First Applicant, Kacey Richardson as the Second Applicant and Joshua Thomas Richardson as the Third Applicant, wherever they appear.
3. The Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 23 February 2018 is confirmed.
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.