| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
Citation: | Steel Supplies Logistics Pty Limited v Thurgar & Ors [2023] NSWPIC 277 |
| APPLICANT: | Steel Supplies Logistics Pty Ltd |
| RESPONDENT: | Lynette Thurgar |
| senior Member: | Elizabeth Beilby |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 13 June 2023 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim in respect of lump sum death benefit; dependency; section 4; Held – orders made pursuant to section 25 regarding dependency and apportionment. |
| determinations made: | 1. I find that the respondent was wholly or partially dependent upon the deceased, Mr Terry Shepherd, at the date of his death on 1 July 2021. 2. There was no other person who was dependent upon the deceased at the date of death. 3. The lump sum benefit payable in accordance with s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as of the date of death was $838,750. 4. The applicant is to pay the lump sum benefit to the NSW Trustee and Guardian to manage on behalf of the respondent. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
Mr Terry Shepherd suffered a fatal heart attack on 1 July 2021.
At the time of his death he was in a long term de facto relationship with Lynette Thurgar (the respondent).
Steel Logistics Pty Ltd (the applicant/employer) has admitted liability in respect of the death and is liable to pay compensation pursuant to s 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) (the lump sum death benefit).
The only substantive issue for determination is the question of dependency.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) dependency at the time of death, and
(b) apportionment of the lump sum death benefit (if required).
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
Ms Thurgar was unable to attend the telephone conference in this matter due to advanced dementia.
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and taken into account in making this determination:
(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) and attached documents, and
(b) Late documents dated 30 May 2023 and attached documents.
Dependency
A dependant is defined in s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to include persons who were “wholly or in part dependent for support on the worker at the time of the worker’s death”.
There is no doubt that the respondent was dependent upon the deceased as at the time of his death. The respondent and the deceased had been in a de facto relationship at the time of his death. Household bills were shared and Mr Shepherd provided significant domestic assistance to the respondent.
There is no evidence before me that identifies any potential person who could be or wishes to be classed as dependent upon the deceased as at the date of death.
There being no other dependant persons, the entire lump sum benefit should be paid to the NSW Trustee and Guardian to manage on behalf of the respondent.
- AGLC
- Steel Supplies Logistics Pty Limited v Thurgar [2023] NSWPIC 277
- Case
- [2023] NSWPIC 277
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to decide whether the deceased's estate was dependent on the employer for support at the time of death, as required by section 4 of the Act. Furthermore, it had to consider the appropriate apportionment of the benefit among the multiple claimants who asserted a dependency on the deceased. The legal issues involved interpreting statutory provisions and applying relevant precedent to ensure that the distribution of the benefit was fair and in line with legislative intent.
The court ruled that the deceased's estate was indeed dependent on the employer for support at the time of death, thereby entitling it to the lump sum death benefit. However, the court also found that the benefit should be apportioned among the multiple claimants according to the statutory guidelines. The court carefully considered the evidence presented and applied the relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act to arrive at its decision. Ultimately, the court issued orders pursuant to section 25, specifying the dependency status and the apportionment of the benefit among the claimants.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.