Can a Co-Parenting Friend Qualify as a ‘De Facto Partner’ for a Workers’ Compensation Death Payout?
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case State of New South Wales (Ambulance Service of NSW) v Jamieson & Ors [2025] NSWPIC 223, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.
Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes
Basic Information
Court of Hearing: Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales
Presiding Judge: Member Rachel Homan
Cause of Action: Workers Compensation Death Benefit Claim
Judgment Date: 22 May 2025
Core Keywords
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Workers Compensation
Keyword 3: De Facto Partner
Keyword 4: Dependant
Keyword 5: Death Benefit Claim
Keyword 6: Interpretation Act 1987
Background
This case revolves around the tragic death of a paramedic employed by the Ambulance Service of NSW. Following her work-related death, a significant lump sum death benefit became payable to her dependants. The employer initiated proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission to determine who legally qualified as a “dependant” and how the compensation should be apportioned. The deceased was survived by her two children and their biological father, who was also her close friend and housemate.
Core Disputes and Claims
The central legal question was whether the biological father of the deceased’s children, who cohabited and co-parented with her, legally qualified as her “de facto partner” and was therefore a “dependant” entitled to a share of the death benefit. The secondary issue was the proper apportionment of the AUD $871,200 lump sum among the confirmed dependants.
Chapter 2: Origin of the Case
The relationship between the First Respondent, Mr Jamieson, and the deceased worker, Ms Knott, was long-standing and deeply complex. They first met in 2000 and developed a strong friendship. A few years later, Ms Knott, who was in a same-sex relationship at the time, approached Mr Jamieson with a request for him to act as a sperm donor so she and her partner could have a child. After initial hesitation, Mr Jamieson agreed.
This arrangement led to the births of their two children, a daughter in 2007 and a son in 2009. For approximately eight or nine years, Ms Knott continued her relationship with her female partner. However, after that relationship ended around 2012, Mr Jamieson moved in with Ms Knott and the children to assist with parenting and household responsibilities.
This co-parenting and cohabitation arrangement continued for over a decade, with the two sharing a leased home and various household expenses. Following Ms Knott’s tragic death in January 2023, the question arose as to whether their unique living arrangement legally constituted a de facto relationship, which would grant Mr Jamieson the status of a dependant under workers compensation law.
Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes
The Commission was presented with a mosaic of evidence, with some pieces supporting the existence of a de facto relationship and others directly contradicting it.
Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments
The Applicant, the State of New South Wales (Ambulance Service of NSW), initiated the proceedings to seek the Commission’s determination. While not taking an adversarial stance, the documents filed highlighted the ambiguity of the relationship, including:
* The deceased’s death certificate, which did not identify a spouse.
* A psychiatrist’s report from December 2022 describing the deceased as a “single” mother who was “separated” from her long-term partner, “Steve,” though they remained “good friends.”
Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments
The First Respondent, Mr Jamieson, argued that he was the deceased’s de facto partner. His evidence included:
* A Residential Tenancy Agreement for their Bateau Bay home, signed jointly.
* Gas bills for the property addressed to both of them.
* A police report regarding the death, which identified him as the “de facto partner” and next of kin.
* His own statement detailing their shared finances, household duties, and mutual commitment to raising their children together as a family unit.
* Statements from the deceased’s family members describing him as a “co-parent.”
Core Dispute Points
The central conflict hinged on the legal interpretation of “relationship as a couple.” The key questions were:
1. Does a long-term, supportive co-parenting arrangement between close friends who cohabit and share finances meet the legal definition of a “de facto relationship”?
2. How should the Commission weigh subjective descriptions (e.g., “best friend,” “co-parent”) against objective documentary evidence (e.g., tax returns, medical records)?
3. Is the absence of a romantic or sexual relationship fatal to a claim of being in a relationship “as a couple”?
Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits
The sworn statements and documentary evidence revealed a stark contrast in how the relationship was formally and informally presented.
In his affidavits, the First Respondent constructed a narrative of a deeply intertwined partnership, emphasising their shared life, mutual financial reliance, and joint commitment to their children. He framed their living arrangement as a modern family structure, which, in his view, amounted to a de facto relationship.
However, this portrayal was challenged by other crucial documents. His own income tax returns for the relevant period declared that he had no spouse or dependent children and listed a different residential address in Wamberal. Furthermore, the deceased’s own treating psychiatrist had documented her as “single” and “separated” from the First Respondent just one month before her death, characterising their connection as a strong friendship. This discrepancy between the subjective descriptions of their relationship and the objective, formal records became a pivotal point of contention for the Commission.
Chapter 5: Court Orders
Prior to the final determination, the matter was subject to two preliminary conferences before the Commission. Recognising the central legal ambiguity, Member Homan directed the First Respondent to file further evidence and detailed written submissions specifically addressing how his relationship with the deceased met the statutory definition of a “dependant” and “de facto partner.” The other parties were given the opportunity to file submissions in response. The matter was then set down for determination on the papers based on this evidence and the written arguments.
Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic
With no oral hearing conducted, the “ultimate showdown” took place within the filed documents and written submissions. The Commission’s task was to weigh the competing narratives presented by the evidence.
On one side of the scale was the human reality of the situation: a long-standing, supportive friendship of over 20 years, a shared home, joint financial responsibilities like rent and utilities, and a profound, shared commitment to raising their two children. The police report, which identified the First Respondent as the de facto partner, and family descriptions of him as a “co-parent” added weight to this side.
On the other side was the formal, and often dispassionate, documentary evidence. The First Respondent’s own tax returns, lodged for official purposes, painted a picture of a single man with no dependants living at a separate address. A clinical report from the deceased’s own treating psychiatrist, recorded just weeks before her death, described her in unambiguous terms as “single” and “separated.”
The Member had to reconcile these conflicting pieces of evidence against the legal test. The core of that test, as outlined in s 21C of the Interpretation Act 1987, is not just about living together or sharing finances; it is whether the two people have a “relationship as a couple.” In navigating this, the Member articulated the determinative reasoning:
“While I accept they may have regarded each other as ‘family’ given the bonds of their friendship, shared children and living arrangements, I am not satisfied that at the time of the deceased worker’s death they were in a relationship as a couple living together.”
This statement was crucial. It acknowledged the depth of their connection but drew a clear legal line. The evidence, when viewed as a whole, pointed more compellingly to a deep and committed co-parenting friendship rather than a relationship “as a couple.” The absence of any evidence of a romantic or sexual element, combined with the powerful contradictory evidence from the tax returns and psychiatric records, proved insurmountable for the First Respondent’s claim.
Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court
The Commission made the following final orders:
1. The Applicant is to pay AUD $435,600 to the Second Respondent.
2. The Applicant is to pay AUD $435,600 to the NSW Trustee and Guardian to be held in trust for the benefit of the Third Respondent until he attains the age of 18 years.
3. The parties are to agree upon or file submissions regarding interest and additional NSW Trustee and Guardian fees within 14 days.
4. The Applicant is to pay the Second and Third Respondents’ costs as agreed or assessed.
5. The First Respondent is to bear his own costs.
Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory
The Commission’s decision provides a masterclass in statutory interpretation and the forensic evaluation of evidence in the context of non-traditional family structures.
Special Analysis
The key jurisprudential value of this case lies in its clarification of the boundary between a close, co-parenting friendship and a legal “de facto relationship.” It affirms that while the modern definition of a couple is fluid and considers various factors, the core element of a “relationship as a couple” remains indispensable. It demonstrates that arrangements of convenience, support, and even deep affection do not automatically equate to a de facto partnership in the eyes of the law, particularly when objective evidence points to a different characterisation of the relationship.
Judgment Points
A notable point in the judgment is the weight given to contemporaneous, formal documents over subjective or post-mortem descriptions. While the police report referred to the First Respondent as a “de facto partner,” the Commission implicitly treated this as a summary description provided in a time of crisis, weighing it less heavily than the psychiatrist’s clinical notes and the First Respondent’s own formal declarations to the Australian Taxation Office. This underscores the judiciary’s reliance on evidence created before a dispute arises.
Legal Basis
The decision turned on the precise wording of several key statutory provisions:
* Section 25(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987: This establishes that the lump sum is payable to “dependants.”
* Section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998: This defines “dependants” as “members of the worker’s family” who were wholly or partly dependent. “Member of a family” includes a “spouse,” which in turn includes a “de facto partner.”
* Section 21C of the Interpretation Act 1987: This is the central provision. It defines a “de facto relationship” as one where two people have a “relationship as a couple living together.” It lists several factors to consider but confirms that the overarching test is the existence of a relationship “as a couple.”
Evidence Chain
The Commission constructed a clear chain of evidence to reach its conclusion.
1. Evidence of a Shared Life: The joint lease and utility bills established cohabitation and some financial interdependence. Family statements confirmed the co-parenting dynamic.
2. Evidence Contradicting a “Couple” Relationship: The deceased’s psychiatrist described her as “single” and “separated.” The First Respondent’s tax returns disavowed any spouse or dependants and listed a separate primary residence. The lack of evidence of a sexual or romantic dimension was also significant.
3. Weighing the Evidence: The Commission placed greater weight on the formal, contemporaneous documents (tax returns, medical records) over the less formal or post-event descriptions (police report, family statements). The evidence, in its totality, supported a finding of a platonic co-parenting household, not a de facto partnership.
Judicial Original Quotation
The Member’s reasoning crystallised in the pivotal finding that distinguished their arrangement from the legal definition of a couple. After considering all the circumstances, Member Homan concluded:
I am not satisfied that the first respondent was the deceased worker’s de facto partner as defined in s 21C of the Interpretation Act 1987. The legislation does not permit, and I have no discretion to allow, an apportionment of the lump sum death benefit to a person who falls outside the defined categories of family relationship, no matter how close or significant the relationship between that person and the deceased worker.
This passage is determinative because it directly applies the strict statutory definition and confirms that emotional closeness and shared responsibilities, while significant, cannot override the legislative requirements. It demonstrates that the Commission’s hands are tied by the law; it cannot create a remedy based on fairness or moral desert where the legal test is not met.
Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure
The First Respondent’s claim failed for two primary reasons:
1. Inability to Prove the “Couple” Element: While he successfully demonstrated many indicia of a shared life (cohabitation, financial contributions, care of children), he failed to adduce sufficient evidence to cross the threshold from “co-parent and best friend” to “a couple living together.” The lack of a romantic element, coupled with evidence of their declared “single” status on official documents, was fatal to his claim.
2. Contradictory Documentary Evidence: His own formal declarations on his tax returns directly undermined his claim. This created a significant credibility issue, suggesting that he did not hold himself out to be in a de facto relationship for all legal purposes (such as taxation), but only sought to claim the status when it was financially advantageous.
Implications
- The Law Defines a ‘Couple’ Differently from Modern Life: This case is a crucial reminder that while society embraces diverse family structures, the law often relies on specific criteria. A deep friendship with shared parenting and finances does not automatically create a legal de facto relationship.
- Your Formal Documents Tell a Story: What you declare on official documents like tax returns or tell your doctor can become powerful evidence in court. These records are often seen as more reliable than statements made after a dispute has arisen.
- Co-Parenting is Not the Same as Co-habiting as a Couple: The law distinguishes between living together for the purpose of raising children and living together in a de facto partnership. This case highlights that the former does not automatically imply the latter.
- Emotional and Financial Support Are Not Enough: While dependence is a key factor, it must first be established that the person is a “member of the family” as defined by the Act. Financial reliance on a friend, even a very close one, does not create an entitlement to a workers’ compensation death benefit.
- Formalise Your Relationship If You Want Legal Protection: For those in non-traditional relationships who wish to ensure their partner is legally recognised, this case underscores the importance of formal steps, such as registering the relationship or making clear declarations in wills and on official forms.
Q&A Session
1. Why did the police report call the First Respondent a “de facto partner” if the Commission found he wasn’t?
The police report records information as it is provided at the time of an incident, often in a state of distress and confusion. While it is a piece of evidence, it is not a legal determination. The Commission is required to conduct a much deeper analysis based on all available evidence, weighing formal documents and long-term patterns of behaviour more heavily than a single description in one report.
2. What could the First Respondent have done differently to succeed?
To succeed, the First Respondent would have needed to provide evidence that went beyond co-parenting and demonstrated a relationship “as a couple.” This might have included evidence of a mutual commitment to a shared life beyond just the children (e.g., being beneficiaries in each other’s superannuation or wills), evidence of how they presented themselves publicly as a couple (not just as co-parents), and addressing the contradictory information in his tax returns and the deceased’s medical records.
3. Why was the son’s share of the money paid to the NSW Trustee and Guardian and not directly to his father, who is now his sole carer?
This is standard legal practice in New South Wales for substantial sums of money awarded to a minor (a person under 18). The funds are placed in trust with the NSW Trustee and Guardian to be professionally managed and protected until the child reaches adulthood. This ensures the money is preserved for the child’s long-term benefit and is not subject to the risks of mismanagement or misappropriation, regardless of how trustworthy the guardian may be.
[Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines]
1. Practical Positioning of This Case
Case Subtype: Workers Compensation – Death Benefit & Dependant Dispute
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment
2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
⑦ Personal Injury and Compensation
Core Test (Negligence under the Civil Liability Act):
* Was there a Duty of Care owed? Not directly applicable here as liability for the death was accepted by the employer.
* Was there a Breach of Duty? Not in dispute.
* Did the breach cause the injury (Causation)? Accepted; the death resulted from a work injury.
Core Test (Dependancy in Death Claims):
* Was the claimant a “member of the family” under s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998? This was the central issue. This required determining if the First Respondent was a “de facto partner.”
* Was the claimant “wholly or in part dependent for support” on the worker at the time of death? This is the second limb of the test. Even if the First Respondent had been found to be a de facto partner, he would still have needed to prove he was financially dependent on the deceased.
* Are there other dependants? The children were clearly identified as dependants.
⑥ Wills, Estates and Succession Law (Relevant Cross-Jurisdictional Test)
Core Test (Existence of De Facto Relationship – Section 21C of the Interpretation Act 1987):
* Duration of the relationship: The parties cohabited for over 10 years, which strongly favoured the claim.
* Nature and extent of common residence: They shared a home, but the First Respondent also maintained connections to another residence and stayed away for work, weakening the “common residence” factor slightly.
* Whether a sexual relationship exists: The evidence suggested no sexual or romantic relationship existed, which was a significant factor against the claim.
* Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: Evidence of joint bills and shared expenses supported the claim, but this was weakened by separate tax affairs.
* Ownership, use and acquisition of property: Limited to a joint lease, with no evidence of other significant joint assets.
* Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: There was a strong commitment to parenting, but the evidence was ambiguous as to whether this extended to a commitment “as a couple.”
* The care and support of children: This was the strongest factor in favour of the First Respondent’s claim.
* Performance of household duties: Evidence suggested these were shared.
* Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: The evidence was mixed. Family referred to him as a “co-parent,” while a police report used “de facto.” Critically, formal documents like tax returns and medical records did not support the reputation of being a couple.
3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims
In a statutory scheme like workers compensation, the grounds for a claim are strictly defined by the legislation. Equitable remedies are generally not available to expand the class of eligible dependants.
- Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel: This would not apply. The claim is against a statutory insurance fund, not against the deceased’s estate. The deceased did not make a promise that the First Respondent would receive her workers compensation benefits upon which he detrimentally relied.
- Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust: This is also inapplicable. The funds do not belong to the deceased’s estate to be distributed according to principles of conscience; they are a statutory entitlement payable only to legislatively defined dependants.
The First Respondent’s claim was confined entirely to the statutory definition of “dependant.” Once he failed to meet that definition, there were no alternative equitable or common law avenues to claim a share of the death benefit.
4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
Regular Thresholds:
* Definition of Dependant: A claimant MUST be a “member of a family” as defined in s 4 of the 1998 Act. This is a hard, non-negotiable threshold.
* Proof of Dependency: The claimant must prove they were wholly or partly dependent for support on the deceased at the time of death.
Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
* In the context of de facto relationships, the legislation itself provides flexibility. Section 21C of the Interpretation Act 1987 states that “No particular finding in relation to any of those matters is necessary.” This means a relationship could still be a de facto relationship even if, for example, there was no sexual component or if the parties did not live together full-time, provided that “all the circumstances” still point to a relationship “as a couple.”
* Suggestion: This case demonstrates that while the criteria are flexible, the core requirement of being “a couple” is a high bar. A person in a similar co-parenting arrangement should not assume they will qualify. The strength of a claim will depend heavily on objective evidence that supports the “public” and “formal” aspects of being a couple, not just the private household arrangements.
5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation
Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
* The definition of “de facto partner” under s 21C of the Interpretation Act 1987, particularly in non-traditional relationships.
* The distinction between a co-parenting arrangement and a relationship “as a couple.”
* The evidentiary weight given to formal documents (like tax returns) versus informal descriptions (like police reports) in determining relationship status.
Citation Method:
* As Positive Support: When arguing that a claimant does not meet the definition of a de facto partner despite cohabitation and shared parenting, this case serves as a strong authority that the central element of being “a couple” must be independently satisfied.
* As a Distinguishing Reference: If an opposing party cites this case to deny a claim, one could distinguish it by providing evidence of a romantic/sexual relationship, mutual declarations of being a couple on official forms, or a public reputation as a couple that was absent in Jamieson.
Anonymisation Rule: In submissions, refer to the parties by their procedural titles: the Applicant (State of New South Wales (Ambulance Service of NSW)) and the First, Second, and Third Respondents.
Conclusion
This case provides a profound insight into the law’s interaction with modern family structures. It teaches us that while our personal definitions of family are broad and based on love and commitment, legal definitions are often narrow and require specific proof. True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.
Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (State of New South Wales (Ambulance Service of NSW) v Jamieson & Ors [2025] NSWPIC 223), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.
Original Case File:
👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.