On 28 December 2020, Marc Andrew Sebastian Field died from injuries sustained in the course of his employment with FIS Systems Pty Ltd. The employer commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission seeking orders for the apportionment of the statutory lump sum death benefit of $834,200 payable under s 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (“1987 Act”).
Section 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act provides that where a worker dies as a result of a compensable injury, the lump sum death benefit is to be apportioned amongst those dependants who were wholly or partly dependent on the worker for support. If there are no such dependants, the benefit is payable to the worker’s legal personal representative.
There was no dispute that Mr Field’s death resulted from a compensable work injury. It was also accepted that the first and second respondents, as the executors of the deceased’s estate, were his legal personal representatives.
The central issue was whether the third to tenth respondents qualified as “dependants” for the purposes of the workers compensation legislation.
Legislative Framework
The definition of “dependants” is contained in s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (“1998 Act”). Broadly, a dependant is a member of the worker’s family who was wholly or partly dependent on the worker for support at the time of death (or would have been but for the worker’s incapacity). The definition also extends to certain other relationships, including persons standing in the place of a parent, dependent divorced spouses and dependent de facto partners.
The 1998 Act separately defines “member of the family” to include specified familial relationships such as spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents and certain step-relatives.
Accordingly, entitlement under s 25 required satisfaction of two essential elements:
- The claimant fell within the statutory definition of a “member of the worker’s family”; and
- The claimant was wholly or partly dependent on the deceased for support.
Statutory Interpretation
In determining these issues, the Commission considered the applicable principles of statutory interpretation. Relying on Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, the Commission reaffirmed that legislation must be construed consistently with its text, context and purpose. Interpretation begins with the statutory language, read in its legal and historical context, with the objective of giving effect to every provision where possible.
The Commission also referred to Hesami v Hong Australia Corporation Pty Ltd, which adopted the New South Wales Court of Appeal’s summary of these principles in Wilson v State Rail Authority of New South Wales. Those authorities emphasise that statutory context, legislative purpose and the overall structure of the legislation inform the interpretive exercise from the outset.
The Respondents’ Claims
The proceedings involved a number of respondents who were close friends of the deceased, beneficiaries under his will, or persons who regarded themselves as members of his chosen family. Evidence demonstrated that the deceased maintained exceptionally close and longstanding relationships with many of them, often describing them as family, providing emotional and financial support, celebrating holidays together and, in some instances, expressing an intention to assist them financially in the future.
The Commission accepted that these relationships were genuine and significant. However, it held that the workers compensation legislation distinguishes between relationships that are socially or emotionally familial and those recognised as family for the purposes of the statutory compensation scheme.
A recurring theme of the respondents’ submissions was an emphasis on the phrase “dependent for support” while giving insufficient attention to the separate statutory requirement that a claimant must first satisfy the definition of “member of the worker’s family”. The Commission observed that none of the authorities relied upon by the respondents supported the proposition that close personal friends could qualify as dependants merely because they regarded one another as family.
The Commission repeatedly emphasised that the definition of “member of the family” is expressed in prescriptive terms through the use of the word “means”. Parliament had deliberately extended the definition of “dependants” to include particular non-familial relationships, such as de facto partners and persons standing in the place of a parent. It had not, however, extended the definition to include close friends, chosen family or other relationships characterised by affection, loyalty or mutual support.
The Commission also rejected submissions that the deceased’s testamentary intentions were relevant to determining dependency. While several respondents were beneficiaries under the deceased’s will, the Commission observed that a person may leave property to anyone by will. Entitlement to workers compensation death benefits, however, is determined solely by the statutory criteria enacted by Parliament.
Similarly, reliance on authorities concerning dependency under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) and family provision legislation was misplaced. Those cases concerned different statutory schemes with different legislative purposes and definitions. The Commission held that concepts of dependency developed in succession law could not be imported into the workers compensation legislation.
The In Loco Parentis Issue
The only respondent whose claim required further consideration was the deceased’s goddaughter, Isabella Hucksteppe.
The evidence established that, while Ms Hucksteppe’s parents remained in Singapore, the deceased cared for her for approximately six months after she relocated to Sydney to complete her schooling. During that period, he supervised her day-to-day welfare, prepared meals, transported her to school, attended school functions and assumed many parental responsibilities.
The Commission accepted that, during this period, the deceased stood in the place of a parent.
However, the legislation required dependency to exist at the time of the worker’s death. By December 2020, Ms Hucksteppe’s parents had returned to Australia several years earlier, she had completed her education, and the deceased no longer stood in the place of a parent. Although their close relationship continued, the statutory requirements were no longer satisfied.
The Commission also rejected submissions that the deceased’s temporary in loco parentis relationship with Ms Hucksteppe extended the statutory definition of “member of the family” to other members of the Hucksteppe family. The provision operates only in relation to the individual to whom the worker stood in the place of a parent and does not enlarge the class of family members recognised by the legislation.
Decision
The Commission concluded that none of the third to tenth respondents satisfied the statutory definition of “dependants” under s 4 of the 1998 Act. Although the evidence demonstrated that the deceased had developed deep personal relationships with many of the respondents and regarded several of them as family, those relationships did not fall within the categories recognised by the legislation.
As there were no qualifying dependants, the Commission ordered that the statutory lump sum death benefit of $834,200 be paid to the deceased’s legal personal representatives (the first and second respondents, being the executors of the Will) pursuant to ss 25 and 32 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW).
Significance
The decision confirms that entitlement to statutory death benefits under the New South Wales workers compensation scheme is governed by the precise wording of the legislation. The concept of “family” in s 4 of the 1998 Act is exhaustive and cannot be expanded to include close friends, chosen family or other relationships, regardless of the emotional closeness of those relationships or the deceased’s testamentary intentions.
The case also demonstrates that the two elements of the statutory definition of “dependants” must be considered separately. A claimant must first establish that they fall within one of the recognised categories of relationship before questions of financial or practical dependency arise. The Commission’s reasoning reinforces that any expansion of those categories is a matter for Parliament rather than judicial interpretation.
This case can be read in full here: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2023/114.html
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.