Compensation to Relatives: Financial Support and Dependency Claims

In New South Wales, the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 defines who can make a claim following a death. This typically includes:

• The husband, wife, or de facto partner of the deceased.
• The children (including stepchildren) of the deceased.
• The parents and siblings of the deceased.

One claim is usually brought on behalf of all eligible relatives who suffered a loss.

The largest part of most claims is the loss of financial support. This is calculated by looking at:

• What the deceased person would have earned over their remaining working life.
• How much of that income was spent on the family (the "dependency" percentage).
• The loss of superannuation contributions.

This assessment requires detailed financial evidence and expert accounting reports to ensure the full loss is captured.

If the deceased person performed significant household tasks—such as home maintenance, gardening, cooking, or childcare—the family can claim for the replacement cost of these services. This is especially critical for surviving partners who now must pay for services previously provided for free.

These claims depend on proving that the other driver was at fault. If the accident was "blameless", or if the deceased was found to be contributorily negligent (partially at fault), the total compensation will be reduced by that percentage. Disputing an insurer’s fault decision is often the most critical part of a dependency claim.

Families are sometimes also dealing with their own psychiatric injury after the death. Those nervous-shock issues are assessed separately from dependency loss and usually require their own diagnosis and evidence pathway. See nervous shock after a fatal accident and secondary victim psychiatric injury.

Dependency claims are often won or lost on the quality of the family’s evidence bundle rather than broad assertions that the deceased "would have provided support". Insurers usually test both the amount of dependency and how long it would probably have continued.

• Income records: PAYG summaries, tax returns, BAS records, employment contracts, superannuation, and evidence of likely future earnings progression.
• Household dependency evidence: bank statements, budgets, school or childcare costs, mortgage/rent commitments, and proof of who paid what in practice.
• Domestic services evidence: statements and records showing childcare, cooking, transport, maintenance, or administrative work previously done by the deceased.
• Family structure and timing: ages of children, education stage, health issues, and the practical period for which dependency would probably have continued.
• Liability and contributory-negligence material: police documents, witness evidence, photographs, and expert material where fault apportionment may reduce damages.

Where the deceased was self-employed, ran a business, or had irregular income, the valuation exercise is usually more complex and often needs cleaner accounting evidence before settlement can be assessed properly.

• One clear dependency chronology: a dated explanation of the family unit, income flow, domestic roles, and what changed after the death.
• Separated claim heads: funeral expenses, dependency loss, domestic services, and any psychiatric injury claims kept distinct so the insurer cannot blur different pathways together.
• Decision-ready financial support: source documents that let an accountant or lawyer model loss realistically instead of relying on estimates alone.
• Consistent witness material: family and third-party statements that match the documentary picture of household support and future plans.
• Review and PIC readiness: organised insurer correspondence and liability reasons preserved early in case the matter moves into formal dispute pathways.

• Only proving grief, not dependency: emotional loss is real, but dependency damages still need financial and services evidence.
• Under-documenting domestic contribution: families often overlook childcare, transport, meal preparation, and other unpaid household work.
• Mixing claim pathways together: dependency, funeral, nervous-shock, estate, and other issues can become confused if they are not separated clearly.
• Assuming liability is obvious: even strong family-loss cases can stall if contributory-negligence or blameless-accident issues are not answered properly.
• Settling before valuation is mature: the real long-term effect on children, household costs, and lost future support can be undervalued if the file is rushed.

Families often prepare large bundles but still struggle in negotiations because the core logic is hard to follow. A one-page valuation map helps: list each dependant, identify the dependency basis, link the supporting documents, and state the insurer dispute point beside your response material.

This simple map improves review quality and usually reduces avoidable delay when matters move from insurer negotiation to internal review or PIC proceedings.

These matters are emotionally heavy and technically demanding. Early, organised advice can help families separate claim pathways, preserve liability material, and avoid settling before dependency evidence is mature. If you are unsure where to start, focus first on document control, one clear chronology, and written reasons for any insurer decision that affects fault or valuation.