Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: AWK v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation. [2013] NSWADT 251 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 07 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Victims Support Division Before: P H Molony, Judicial Member Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
Catchwords: Victims Support and Rehabilitation - compensable injury - chronic psychological or psychiatric disorder - ARW reports - there must be a diagnosed psychological condition - expert report should clearly explain the basis on which diagnosis made Legislation Cited: Victim Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013
Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2012Cases Cited: Commonwealth of Australia v Smith [2005] NSWCA 478
South Western Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds [2007] NSWCA 16
Tame v State of New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; 211 CLR 317; 191 ALR 449; 76 ALJR 1348Category: Principal judgment Parties: AWK (Applicant)
Victims Compensation Fund Corporation (Respondent)File Number(s): 137133 Publication restriction: s 126 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act
reasons for decision
Background
AWK who is aged 44 claims compensation for psychological injuries which he claims to have received on 6 July 2010 when he was the victim of a robbery at home. The robbery occurred when two men, posing as plain clothes police officers gained entry to his house on the pretext that they had a search warrant. The Compensation Assessor was satisfied that AWK had established an act of violence in the course of the commission of an offence, but was not satisfied that AWK had established that he suffered from a psychological/psychiatric disorder as a result.
Application of the old Act
On 7 May 2013 the New South Wales Government introduced into Parliament an Act which changed the form of support provided to victims of violent crime in New South Wales. The Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 ("the old Act") was repealed and replaced by the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 ("the new Act"). AWK's solicitors were informed that the appeal would be determined under the new Act.
The Victims Compensation Tribunal was abolished and pursuant to Clause 14 of Schedule 2 of the new Act appeals to it are taken to have been commenced before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. As a Judicial Member in the Victim Services Division of the ADT I have been directed by the President of the ADT to hear the appeal and, in doing so, may exercise all the functions that the Victims Compensation Tribunal had immediately before the commencement of the new Act.
On 16 August 2013 clause 16 of the Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2012 ("the Regulation") commenced operation. This provided that appeals which were pending as at 3 June 2013 are to be determined under the old Act. AWK's solicitors had previously made submissions on the basis of the appeal proceeding under the old Act. Since Clause 16 of the Regulation commenced AWK has been advised of it by the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read AWK v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NSWADT 251
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether AWK's psychological conditions qualified as compensable injuries under the relevant legislation and whether the expert reports submitted in support of his claims were sufficient. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the reports provided a clear and adequate basis for diagnosing AWK's psychological conditions. The court considered the requirements for expert reports under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic), which mandates that a diagnosed psychological condition must be supported by an expert report explaining the basis of the diagnosis.
In its reasoning, the court found that AWK's expert reports did not sufficiently explain the basis of the diagnosis of his psychological conditions. The court noted that while the reports identified certain psychological disorders, they did not adequately explain how these conditions were diagnosed or the specific criteria used. Consequently, the court concluded that the expert reports did not meet the statutory requirements for compensable injuries. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.