Roe and K & S Freighters Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the delegate of the respondent, which denied liability under section 17 of the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) for the death of Mr Mark Rallings. The applicant, Ms Kellie Jayne Roe, sought compensation as a dependant of the deceased. The central dispute revolved around whether Ms Roe and her son, Ky Rallings, were dependants of the deceased at the time of his death, and the extent of their dependency.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the applicant and Ky Rallings were dependants of the deceased, whether Ky Rallings qualified as a "prescribed child," whether the applicant and the deceased were in a de facto relationship, and whether the dependants were wholly or partly dependent on the deceased. The court also needed to consider the applicant's role as the primary caregiver to Ky Rallings and whether the applicant and the deceased were living together at the time of his death.

The Deputy President found that while the applicant and the deceased had a strained relationship and were not in a de facto relationship at the time of Mr Rallings' death, they had lived together for significant periods and had a child, Ky Rallings, together. The court accepted that Ky Rallings was a dependant and a "prescribed child." Crucially, the court determined that both the applicant and Ky Rallings were partly dependent on Mr Rallings, who had provided the main income for the family during their cohabitation. The court applied section 17(4) of the *SRC Act*, which provides for compensation to dependants who are partly dependent.

The reviewable decision was varied. The court ordered that the deceased had two dependants, the applicant and Ky Rallings, who were partly dependent and therefore entitled to benefit under section 17(4) of the *SRC Act*. The applicant was awarded 5% of the principal sum, and Ky Rallings was awarded 35%. Additionally, the applicant was found to be entitled to a benefit under section 18 of the *SRC Act* in the amount of $11,459.25. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application for review.