The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) determines:

1. Russell Christopher Graham (the worker) died on 25 October 2024 as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the first respondent, pursuant to s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
2. The applicant was dependent for support on the worker.
3. The second respondent was dependent for support on the worker.
4. The third respondent was dependent for support on the worker.
5. The fourth respondent was dependent for support on the worker.
6. There were no other persons dependent for support on the worker.
7. The first respondent is liable to pay the amount of $938,600 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act.
8. The amount of $938,600 is to be apportioned as follows, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act:

(a) applicant - 70% - $657,020;

(b) second respondent - 10% - $93,860;

(c) third respondent - 10% - $93,860, and

(d) fourth respondent - 10% - $93,860.

1. The first respondent is to pay interest on the amounts awarded to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), as agreed between the parties and as follows:

(a) applicant - $7,000;

(b) second respondent - $1,000;

(c) third respondent - $1,000, and

(d) fourth respondent - $1,000.

1. The claim brought in the proceedings pursuant to s 26 of the 1987 Act is discontinued.
2. Pursuant to ss 25(1)(a), 29, and 85A of the 1987 Act, the first respondent is to pay the applicant the amount of $657,020, together with interest of $7,000 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act).
3. Pursuant to ss 25(1)(a), 29, and 85A of the 1987 Act, the first respondent is to pay the second respondent the amount of $93,860, together with interest of $1,000 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act).
4. Pursuant to ss 25(1)(a), 29, and 85A of the 1987 Act, the first respondent is to pay the third respondent the amount of $93,860, together with interest of $1,000 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act).
5. Pursuant to ss 25(1)(a), 29, and 85A of the 1987 Act, the first respondent is to pay the fourth respondent the amount of $93,860, together with interest of $1,000 (in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act).

A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission's reasons for the determination.

1. Russell Christopher Graham (the worker) died on 25 October 2024 as a result of injuries which he received on that date in the course of his employment with Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd (the first respondent). He was 63 years old at the time.
2. His wife, Jane Claire Hamlyn Graham, is the applicant. She is currently 55 years old.
3. His eldest son, Christopher Angus Graham, is the second respondent. He is currently 22 years old.
4. His youngest son, Joshua Julian Graham, is the third respondent. He is currently 18 years old.
5. His daughter, Genevieve Claire Graham, is the fourth respondent. She is currently 18 years old.
6. The first respondent has conceded liability for compensation flowing from the worker's death, advising the applicant formally in this regard by correspondence dated 7 October 2025.
7. By way of an Application in Respect of Death of Worker (ARDW) lodged with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 19 December 2025 therefore, the applicant seeks orders:

(a) that a lump sum pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in the amount of $938,600 be paid by the first respondent - as apportioned (in accordance with s 29 of the 1987 Act) between herself, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent;

(b) that the worker's funeral expenses be paid pursuant to s 26 of the 1987 Act, and

(c) that relevant orders for payment be made in accordance with s 85A of the 1987 Act.

1. The parties have agreed that the only issues requiring determination by me in these proceedings are

(a) who was dependent for support on the worker;

(b) how should the amount of $938,600 be apportioned between those dependants, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act;

(c) are the dependants entitled to interest on the amounts awarded to them, pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), and

(d) how are the amounts awarded to the dependants to be paid in accordance with ss 85 and 85A of the 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

1. The proceedings were listed before me for preliminary conferences (by MS Teams audiovisual links) on 11 March 2026 and 27 March 2026. Following the 27 March 2026 preliminary conference, the parties were content for me to determine the issues listed at paragraph 8 above 'on the papers'.
2. At the 27 March 2026 preliminary conference, the applicant was represented by Mr McKessar (solicitor) and the applicant was also present. The first respondent was represented by Mr Myles (solicitor) as well as Ms Dean and Mr Payne. The second respondent was represented by Mr Burns (solicitor) and the second respondent was also present. The third respondent was represented by Mr Kelly (solicitor) and the third respondent was also present. The fourth respondent was represented by Mr Jones (solicitor) and the fourth respondent was also present.
3. The issues for determination by me (see paragraph 8 above) were agreed by all parties. I was also informed:

(a) the parties agreed to the claim in the ARDW pursuant to s 26 of the 1987 Act being discontinued;

(b) the first respondent conceded liability to pay the amount of $938,600 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act;

(c) the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent had come to an agreement (subject to my approval) regarding apportionment of the amount payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act - the agreement was:

(i) applicant - 70%;

(ii) second respondent - 10%;

(iii) third respondent - 10%, and

(iv) fourth respondent - 10%;

(d) an agreement had been reached between all the parties regarding interest to be paid by the first respondent pursuant to s 109 of the 1998 Act, should I approve the apportionment agreement - the agreement regarding interest was that the first respondent would pay:

(i) $7,000 to the applicant;

(ii) $1,000 to the second respondent;

(iii) $1,000 to the third respondent, and

(iv) $1,000 to the fourth respondent, and

(e) the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent all requested that amounts awarded to them be paid directly to them - in accordance with s 85A of the 1987 Act.

1. I am grateful to all parties for their assistance in these proceedings, and for their timely provision of evidence in the proceedings. I am also grateful to them for the courteous and respectful manner in which they have conducted themselves.

1. The following documents were in evidence before me in these proceedings and considered by me in making this determination - no party had any objection to the admission of any of these documents:

(a) the ARDW and attached documents;

(b) the applicant's Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated

6 February 2026 (applicant's first ALAD) and attached documents;

(c) the applicant's Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 6 March 2026 (applicant's second ALAD) and attached documents;

(d) the applicant's Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 24 March 2026 (applicant's third ALAD) and attached documents;

(e) the first respondent's Reply (first Reply) and attached documents;

(f) the second respondent's Reply (second Reply) and attached documents;

(g) the third respondent's Reply (third Reply) and attached documents, and

(h) the fourth respondent's Reply (fourth Reply) and attached documents.

1. There was no oral evidence given in these proceedings.

"(1) If death results from an injury, the amount of compensation payable by the employer under this Act shall be-

(a) the amount of $750,000 (the 'lump sum death benefit'), which is to be apportioned among any dependants who are wholly or partly dependent for support on the worker or (if there are no such dependants) paid to the worker's legal personal representative..."

The amount of $750,00 has been indexed, and the parties have agreed that the correct amount to be awarded as at 25 October 2024 is $938,600.

1. Section 4 of the 1998 Act defines a dependant as follows:

"'dependants' of a worker means such of the members of the worker's family as were wholly or in part dependent for support on the worker at the time of the worker's death, or would but for the incapacity due to the injury have been so dependent..."

"'member of a family' means spouse (including wife or husband), father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister."

1. I have carefully considered the statements/statutory declarations in evidence from:

(a) the applicant - dated 4 December 2025 (found at page 1 of the ARDW),

2 February 2026 (found at page 1 of the applicant's first ALAD), and

17 March 2026 (found at page 1 of the applicant's third ALAD);

(b) the second respondent - dated 16 January 2026 (found at page 5 of the second Reply);

(c) the third respondent - dated 19 January 2026 (found at page 1 of the third Reply), and

(d) the fourth respondent - dated 10 March 2026 (found at page 1 of the fourth Reply).

1. The evidence given in these statements/statutory declarations is consistent as to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent all being dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death. I so find.
2. The applicant and the worker had lived together at least from the date when they were married on 5 April 2003. They had three (now adult) children together (being the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent). They shared financial accounts, they owned their home jointly (subject to a mortgage), and they paid household expenses together. They were mutually dependent upon each other. The applicant had reasonable expectations that the worker would provide support for them both into the future - see TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris (1987) 8 NSWLR 486.
3. The second respondent still lives at home. He pays $100 per week in board. He has a number of part-time/casual employments, but intends to go to university or undertake a mechanical apprenticeship. He says:

"Either way, I am going to be studying and working and not earning much money for the foreseeable future...I intend to stay living at home because I can't afford to move out of home, pay rent and living expenses and work full time and study."

"Mum and Dad raised the three of us to not go without. They provided us with an education and a happy home to grow up in, and provided us with clothing, computers, phones, holidays, that kind of thing. We had all we needed."

1. In relation to his current domestic situation, he says:

"As my brother and my sister have finished high school and we will be remaining at home, Mum's expecting us all to pitch in more around the home. Mum said [she] will still provide for us including usual living expenses as the board I pay will go somewhat towards those costs, including groceries, power, water, utilities."

1. He also advises that he has been diagnosed with both attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. His recent treatment in this regard has been paid for by his mother.
2. The third respondent also still lives at home. He has just finished his Higher School Certificate and intends to study horticulture. He has just obtained part-time employment.
3. He also addresses his upbringing:

"My upbringing was that in a normal family environment. Mum and dad collectively looked after myself and my siblings in the normal way. They paid for everything we needed, and we lived in a happy and secure environment...Dad (as well as Mum) would give me pocket money and would watch me play sport and provided emotional support during my formative and teenage years...Dad's passing is a devastating tragedy and sincerely difficult for us all to take...We are a close family and always stuck together. We miss him greatly...Mum and dad have always supported each other as well as Christopher, Genevieve and myself...I have no doubt that they would have continued to support us into the future the best they could in relation to living expenses and help out in any way they could financially and emotionally."

1. He also advises that he has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, for which he takes medication. He further recently had significant dental surgery, which was financed by his mother.
2. The fourth respondent also still lives at home. She has just finished her Higher School Certificate, and currently works as a casual shop assistant. She has not yet decided whether to undertake university studies.
3. She does not pay any board for living at home, and her mother provides her with her meals. She does not have any major health issues other than suffering from eczema from time to time.
4. She also advises in relation to her future expectations:

"I always expected that my father would have assisted me as fathers generally do for their children. For example, when I'm needed to move out of home I am sure that my father would have assisted me with moving of my furniture and the like and would have assisted with any task that might have needed to be completed around any premises that I owned in the nature of handyman work."

1. It is clear to me that the applicant, the worker, and their three children formed a very close and harmonious family. While the three children are now adults, they remain living at home while they are establishing themselves. It is evident that the worker (just as the applicant is doing at the moment) would have provided significant support to his children during this period. The nature of the family relationship is such that they had reasonable expectations of this support, and indeed reasonable expectations of support to a degree on an ongoing basis even once they had established themselves.
2. Apart from the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, it now remains for me to determine whether there were any other persons (being 'members of the family' in accordance with s 4 of the 1998 Act) who were dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death, in that they had reasonable expectations that he would provide support for them into the future. In this regard, I note the following evidence:

(a) the worker's parents and grandparents are all deceased - see the applicant's

2 February 2026 statement;

(b) the worker had two siblings, Meredith Brown and Tony Graham - see the applicant's 2 February 2026 statement;

(c) Meredith Brown declares (in a statutory declaration on 20 March 2026 - found at page 4 of the applicant's third ALAD) that she was not financially or otherwise dependent on the worker at the date of the worker's death or at any other time;

(d) Tony Graham declares (in a statutory declaration on 19 March 2026 - found at page 2 of the applicant's third ALAD) that he was not financially or otherwise dependent on the worker at the date of the worker's death or at any other time;

(e) the worker had not been married, other than to the applicant - see the applicant's 17 March 2026 statutory declaration;

(f) the worker only had three children (being the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent) - see the applicant's 17 March 2026 statutory declaration, and

(g) the worker had no grandchildren - see the applicant's 17 March 2026 statutory declaration.

1. Relying upon this evidence (and noting the knowledge that the applicant would have had in relation to the worker's financial and personal affairs due to her marriage to him for over 20 years), I have no hesitation in finding that apart from the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, there were no grandparents, parents, siblings, spouses, partners, children or others dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death.

How should the amount of $938,600 be apportioned between the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act

1. Section 29 of the 1987 Act relevantly provides:

"(1) The compensation payable under this Division to each dependant of a deceased worker may be apportioned by the Commission or by the NSW Trustee.

(1A) The lump sum death benefit payable under this Division is not to be apportioned if a deceased worker leaves only one dependant (whether wholly or partly dependent on the worker for support) and the whole of the lump sum death benefit is to be paid to that one dependant.

(1B) In apportioning the lump sum death benefit payable under this Division between 2 or more dependants, the whole lump sum death benefit is to be apportioned among those dependants (so that the sum of the apportioned amounts equals the full lump sum death benefit)."

1. As indicated at paragraph 11(c) above, the parties have agreed an apportionment of the lump sum payable under s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. The agreement in this regard is:

(a) applicant - 70%;

(b) second respondent - 10%;

(c) third respondent - 10%, and

(d) fourth respondent - 10%.

1. I consider this proposed apportionment to be a sound apportionment of the relevant lump sum having regard to the dependency levels on the worker of each dependant. The apportionment allows the applicant to receive the majority of the lump sum, which is appropriate considering that at the time of the worker's death, she had been in a long-term relationship with the worker for over 20 years. There was no evidence before me that the relationship was not likely to continue indefinitely. Indeed, the evidence suggests a very strong relationship between the applicant and the worker, with them each mutually sharing their family's assets, liabilities, finances and responsibilities. The applicant had a reasonable expectation of receiving substantial financial and other support from the worker for the remainder of his working life, and further.
2. The proposed apportionment also allows the children of the worker and the applicant to receive appropriate allowances for their financial dependence on the worker. Although the children are now all adults, they all still live at home with the applicant while they are establishing themselves. It is notable that the applicant herself has had to still provide substantial financial assistance to them since the worker's death. On the evidence before me, the family dynamic is such that, but for the worker's death, he and the applicant would have continued to provide financial assistance to their children, when needed, on a continuing basis into their adult lives.
3. It might be considered that the equal apportionment of the relevant lump sum to the children does not sufficiently take into account the slight age difference between them, or their different medical needs.
4. The agreed equal apportionment is however certainly possibly an apportionment which would have been determined by me had there not been an agreement between the dependants. I am also satisfied that each dependant has received thorough and reliable independent legal advice, and has therefore been in an informed position to subsequently agree to the apportionment. There is no evidence of any capacity issues in this regard.
5. It is evident to me (from their mutual statement evidence) that the applicant and the three children remain very close to each other, and that the family dynamic in this regard is harmonious and robust. The apportionment agreement, when considered through the lens of this close family relationship, is understandable.
6. It is also an agreement forged after a compensation claim process following the worker's death, which is not a pleasant process at all for grieving relatives. It is not in these circumstances an agreement that I intend in any way to interfere with.
7. I approve the apportionment agreement of the relevant lump sum agreed between the parties.

Are the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent entitled to interest on the amounts awarded to them, pursuant to s 109 of the 1998 Act

1. Section 109 of the 1998 Act relevantly provides:

"(1) In any proceedings before the Commission, the Commission may order that there is to be included, in any sum to be paid, interest at such rate as the Commission thinks fit on the whole or any part of the sum for the whole or any part of the period before the sum is payable, subject to the limitations imposed by this section.

(a) on any compensation payable under Division 4 of Part 3 of the 1987 Act, or

(b) on any compensation payable under this Act for any period before a claim for the compensation was duly made, or

(c) on any compensation payable under this Act for any period during which proceedings before the Commission were adjourned on the application of the claimant for the compensation or pursuant to section 102.

(a) authorise the giving of interest upon interest, or

(b) apply in relation to any debt upon which interest is payable as of right whether by virtue of any agreement or otherwise."

1. As indicated at paragraph 11(d) above, the parties have agreed as to the interest to be paid by the first respondent on the amounts awarded to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent and the fourth respondent.
2. The power of the Commission to award interest is however discretionary.
3. In Pheeney v Doolan (No 2) [1977] 1 NSWLR 601, the Court of Appeal said that it was necessary to determine in what respect a party has been financially disadvantaged by delay in the payment of (in that case) damages so as to make an appropriate allowance of interest. Reynolds JA, Moffitt P and Mahoney JA agreeing on point, said:

"It provides an ancillary power akin to an order for costs, and its purpose is to aid the court to do more complete justice between the parties than is otherwise possible ... It is not designed to compensate a plaintiff for loss arising out of the cause of action, but to provide compensation where it is otherwise appropriate to do so for the circumstance that a sum of money has been outstanding to him for a period of time."

1. Applying this reasoning, and considering the agreement of the parties, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to award interest.
2. I will order that interest be paid by the first respondent, as agreed between the parties. The amounts agreed in this regard reflect both an appropriate interest rate and an appropriate period for the payment of interest (in accordance with when the first respondent was provided with dependency evidence by each dependant).

How are the amounts awarded to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent to be paid in accordance with ss 85 and 85A of the 1987 Act

"(1) The following compensation shall be paid to the NSW Trustee in trust for the benefit of the persons entitled to the compensation--

(a) compensation payable in respect of the death of a worker (unless paid to a worker's legal personal representative or a particular person in accordance with this Act or an award),

(b) compensation payable to a person who is mentally ill (unless the Commission otherwise orders),

(c) compensation payable to a worker under the age of 18 years if the worker agrees or the Commission directs that the compensation be paid to the NSW Trustee,

(d) a lump sum commutation payment which the worker agrees or the Commission orders to be paid to the NSW Trustee.

(2) Any money so paid to the NSW Trustee may be invested, applied, paid out or otherwise dealt with by the NSW Trustee in such manner as the NSW Trustee thinks fit for the benefit of the persons entitled to the money.

(3) If a surviving spouse (including widow or widower) (over 18 years of age and not mentally ill) is the only person entitled to compensation paid to the NSW Trustee in respect of the death of a worker, the compensation shall be paid out to the surviving spouse in one or more lump sums determined by the NSW Trustee.

(4) A reference in subsection (3) to the surviving spouse of a deceased worker includes a reference to a dependant of the worker who is the de facto partner of the worker.

(5) In the case of a lump sum commutation payment, the NSW Trustee shall exercise its powers under this section in accordance with the agreement or order under which it was paid to the NSW Trustee.

(6) The Commission may, for any sufficient cause, vary the manner in which the NSW Trustee invests, applies, pays out or otherwise deals with money under this section.

(7) The NSW Trustee may apply for any such variation.

(8) The receipt of the NSW Trustee is sufficient discharge in respect of any money paid to the NSW Trustee under this section."

1. Section 85A of the 1987 Act then reads as follows:

"(1) Despite section 85, the Commission may authorise the payment of compensation referred to in section 85 (1)--

(a) to the person who is entitled to the compensation, or

(b) to such other person, for the benefit of the person entitled to the compensation, as the Commission thinks fit.

(2) Any such payment is to be made in the manner authorised by the Commission."

1. I am given a wide discretion in accordance with s 85A of the 1987 Act in relation to how I authorise the payment of the lump sums payable to the dependants. There are no capacity issues in relation to any of them, and there is therefore no reason why I would not order that the relevant dependants directly receive the lump sums payable to them, and I will do so.

1. I find that the worker died on 25 October 2024 as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the first respondent, pursuant to s 4 of the 1987 Act.
2. I find that the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent were all dependent for support on the worker. I also find that there were no other persons dependent for support on him.
3. I find that the first respondent is liable to pay the amount of $938,600 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act_._
4. I approve, in accordance with s 29 of the 1987 Act, the agreed apportionment (see paragraph 11(c) above) between the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, of the lump sum payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act.
5. I order interest, in accordance with s 109 of the 1998 Act, on the lump sums payable to the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, in accordance with the agreement between the parties (see paragraph 11(d) above).
6. I make awards in favour of the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent, in relation to their respective apportioned amounts of the lump sum payable pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, together with agreed interest. I order payment of these awards to be made directly to them in accordance with s 85A of the 1987 Act.
7. In accordance with the agreement of the parties (see paragraph 11(a) above), I discontinue the claim in the ARDW pursuant to s 26 of the 1987 Act.