Shanahan v SHCB Constructions Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 547

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Shanahan v SHCB Constructions Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] NSWPIC 547
APPLICANT:	Bridie Shanahan
FIRST RESPONDENT:	SHCB Constructions Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	William Machado by his tutor Cathy Lynn Shanahan
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Bonnie Walsh by her tutor Kate Louise Taylor
FOURTH RESPONDENT:	Courtney Walsh by her tutor Kate Louise Taylor
FIFTH RESPONDENT:	Holly Walsh by her tutor Kate Louise Taylor
SIXTH RESPONDENT:	Fleur Frances Walsh
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	Glenn Capel
DATE OF DECISION:	2 October 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Death claim; dispute in respect of the dependency of the applicant’s son of the deceased; Canute v W A Pickles (NSW) Pty Ltd ATF The William Alan Pickles Family Trust & Ors, Rose-Barnett & Ors by their representative Sharyn Gaye Rose v T A Edison Pty Ltd, TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris, Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd; Wratten v Kirkpatrick & Ors, BFG v Polyfoam (Sydney) Pty Ltd & Ors, and Slater v Newman Bros (Sawmill) Pty Ltd discussed and applied; Held – deceased stood “in loco parentis” to the second respondent; determination of dependency, apportionment, and payment of death benefit, interest and management fee.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The deceased worker, Shawn Walsh, died on 30 August 2023 as a result of injury sustained arising out of or in the course of his employment with the first respondent. 2. Bridie Shanahan was partly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 3. William Machado was partly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 4. Bonnie Walsh was wholly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 5. Courtney Walsh was wholly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 6. Holly Walsh was wholly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 7. Fleur Walsh was partly dependent for support upon the deceased at the date of death. 8. The deceased had no other persons dependent on him. 9. The first respondent is liable for the payment of lump sum compensation, weekly compensation, interest and the management fee. The Commission orders: 10. The first respondent is to pay the applicant lump sum compensation of $345,350.42 pursuant to ss 25(1) and 85A(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) and s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act). 11. The first respondent is to pay the sixth respondent lump sum compensation of $45,374.82 pursuant to ss 25(1)(a) and 85A(1)(a) of the 1987 Act and s 109 of the 1998 Act. 12. The first respondent to pay the applicant $159.90 per week as adjusted to date and continuing in respect of the second respondent pursuant to ss 25(1)(b) and 31(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. 13. The first respondent to pay the following amounts to the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian pursuant to ss 25(1A) and 85(1)(c) of the 1987 Act,…

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 Shanahan v SHCB Constructions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Shanahan v SHCB Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 547
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 547
Decision Date: 2 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Shanahan v SHCB Constructions Pty Ltd, the applicant, Shanahan, sought a review of a decision by the respondent, SHCB Constructions Pty Ltd, regarding a workers' compensation claim. The crux of the dispute was the dependency of the applicant’s son on the deceased, Mr. Shanahan, and the consequent entitlement to a death benefit under the Workers' Compensation Act. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the deceased stood in loco parentis to the second respondent, the determination of dependency, the apportionment of the death benefit, and the calculation of interest and management fees. The court needed to evaluate the precedents and statutory provisions applicable to workers' compensation claims, particularly focusing on the dependency criteria under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The tribunal meticulously examined relevant case law, including Canute v W A Pickles (NSW) Pty Ltd ATF The William Alan Pickles Family Trust & Ors, Rose-Barnett & Ors by their representative Sharyn Gaye Rose v T A Edison Pty Ltd, TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris, Kaur v Thales Underwater Systems Pty Ltd, Wratten v Kirkpatrick & Ors, BFG v Polyfoam (Sydney) Pty Ltd & Ors, and Slater v Newman Bros (Sawmill) Pty Ltd. The court determined that the deceased had indeed stood in loco parentis to the second respondent, fulfilling the dependency requirement. The tribunal ordered a proportionate distribution of the death benefit, along with interest and a management fee, as per the statutory provisions and precedents.

In summary, the tribunal ruled in favour of the applicant, mandating the respondent to provide the death benefit, interest, and management fees as determined by the court. The decision underscored the importance of dependency criteria in workers' compensation claims and the application of relevant legal precedents in such disputes.

Orders