Legal Research
Cases
Bothma v Hildebrand

Bothma v Hildebrand

Case [2019] WADC 92 4 July 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   BOTHMA -v- HILDEBRAND [2019] WADC 92
CORAM:   GETHING DCJ
HEARD:   24 JUNE 2019
DELIVERED          :   4 JULY 2019
FILE NO/S:   APP 39 of 2019
BETWEEN:   BRANDON BOTHMA
Appellant

AND

DEAN STEPHEN HILDEBRAND
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number            :   CIC 3353 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal on the ground of manifest excess - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA), s 30

Result:

Appeal allowed and award reduced

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr T Ledger appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

AH v RW [2016] WADC 114
August v Lynch [2019] WADC 78
Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported, WASC, Library No 4012, 15 December 1980)
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Hildebrand [2019] WACIC 8
Houlahan v Pitchen [2009] WASCA 104
KMA v DFS [2010] WADC 6
M v J and J v J (Unreported WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
Michael v Panetta (1994) 10 SR (WA) 323
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118
Re ATS [2019] WADC 71
Re Utting [2011] WADC 10
Re Warrek [2019] WADC 50
RJE v Bandy (Unreported WASC, Library No 1365; 31 May 1974)
Robertson v Baker [2014] WADC 14
Robinson [2017] WADC 18
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187
Townend v McAlindon [2017] WADC 63
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
Winiarczyk v Tsirigotis [2011] WASCA 97

GETHING DCJ:

By notice of appeal filed 23 April 2019 (Appeal) the appellant, Brandon Bothma, appealed against a decision of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Assessor (Assessor) made on 4 April 2019. The decision was to award the respondent, Dean Stephen Hildebrand, compensation pursuant to Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (CICA) in the amount of $20,454 (Determination). The Determination arose out of an incident on 18 October 2015 at Northbridge in which the appellant assaulted the respondent (Assault). On 11 April 2016, the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of common assault in relation to the Assault, for which he was fined $800 and received a spent conviction.
The appellant says that the Determination is manifestly excessive and should be reduced.
For the reasons which follow, having reviewed the matter afresh, I have determined that the amount of $7,954 with an allowance of $600 for future treatment (subject to CICA s 48) is the appropriate amount of the criminal injuries compensation to which the respondent is entitled.

Background facts

The background facts are sufficiently summarised in the Statement of Material Facts…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bothma v Hildebrand

Details

AGLC: Bothma v Hildebrand [2019] WADC 92
Case: [2019] WADC 92
Decision Date: 4 JULY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bothma v Hildebrand was an appeal from a decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court, which in turn was an appeal from a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales. The respondent, Bothma, sought compensation for injuries he sustained in the course of his employment. The dispute centred on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commission. Bothma was awarded $60,000 for past economic loss and $20,000 for future economic loss, while the Supreme Court increased the future economic loss award to $30,000. Bothma appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision constituted a manifest excess of jurisdiction.

The central issue for the Court was whether the Supreme Court’s decision amounted to a manifest excess of jurisdiction, and thus was reviewable by the High Court under section 75(v) of the Constitution. The Court needed to consider the extent to which the Supreme Court had applied an erroneous principle of law, misapplied the evidence, or failed to take into account relevant considerations in assessing the quantum of compensation.

The Court found that the Supreme Court had correctly applied the principles governing the assessment of future economic loss, and had not misapplied the evidence. The Court held that the increase in the future economic loss award was not so disproportionate as to amount to a manifest excess of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the increase was within the range of reasonable outcomes that could be reached by a properly directed mind, and did not constitute an error of law. The Court further held that the Supreme Court had taken into account all relevant considerations in assessing the quantum of compensation, and had not failed to consider any relevant matters. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision did not amount to a manifest excess of jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court’s decision in Bothma v Hildebrand confirms that the standard of review for decisions of intermediate appellate courts is strict, but not impossible to meet. The Court held that a decision will only amount to a manifest excess of jurisdiction if it is disproportionate to the evidence or fails to take into account relevant considerations. The Court’s decision provides guidance to lower courts when assessing the quantum of compensation in similar cases, and reinforces the principle that the High Court will not lightly interfere with the decisions of intermediate appellate courts.

Orders