Reported Decision : (2001) 22 NSWCCR 58 Compensation Court of New South Wales CITATION : Corowa Trading Co v Sanderson [2001] NSWCC 164 Corowa Trading Co PARTIES : v Kerry Sanderson MATTER NUMBER(S) : 2296 of 2001 JUDGMENT OF: Neilson J at 1 CATCHWORDS: Assessment of Compensation :- Death benefits. Weekly payments for children. Redemption/Commutation proposed. No power to order. H H Robertson Australia Pty Ltd v Crisp [1977] WCR 183 applied. LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 31/05/01 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 05/31/2001 FOR APPLICANT: Ms Hennessy (clerk) instructed by Curwood & Partners appeared for the applicant. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR RESPONDENT: Mr A J Hourigan instructed by Harris Lieberman Boyd appeared for the respondent. JUDGMENT: 1. This is an application by an employer for commutation of the employer's liability to make weekly payments of compensation to dependants of a deceased worker. The children's entitlement to the weekly payments arises from the employer's liability under the modern s 25(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. However, in this case the death occurred on 26 July 1983 so that the liability in fact arises under s 8(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1926. An appropriate lump sum has been paid pursuant to s 8(1)(a) and has been apportioned between the dependants. The dependants were the widow and her children. The children are now all sui juris. Accordingly, the apportioned parts of the lump sum have been paid out to the dependants. There are still two dependent children. There is one child age 18 years who is in her final year of high school and a son aged 20 who is at university. They are entitled to weekly payments under s 8(1)(b). 2. It is the liability to make weekly payments to the children that it is sought to be commuted, although in fact it ought be a redemption bearing in mind the date of the injury. The first problem with the proposal before me is that the respondent to the application is the widow of the deceased and the weekly payments are made for the benefit of the children, who, being sui juris, ought be the named respondents. The applicant is unable lawfully to give consent on behalf of the children who have attained their majority. 3. However, more fundamental to the question is whether the Court has power to make an order for redemption or commutation of the liability under the former s 8(1)(b) or the current s 25(1)(b). It was authoritatively decided to the contrary by his Honour, Judge Ferrari, in H H Robertson Australia Pty Limited v Crisp [1977] WCR 183. His Honour held that there is no power under the former s 15 (the current s 52) to make an order for redemption, or, as we now call it, commutation. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the prayer for relief claimed in the application for determination. The application for determination is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 4. Order the applicant employer to pay the respondent's costs. Ms Hennessy (clerk) instructed by Curwood & Partners appeared for the applicant. Mr A J Hourigan instructed by Harris Lieberman Boyd appeared for the respondent. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.