Budd v Victims Compensation Corporation Fund

CITATION:	Budd v Victims Compensation Corporation Fund [2009] NSWDC 35
HEARING DATE(S):	20 February 2009
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	20 February 2009
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Goldring DCJ
DECISION:	Leave to appeal refused
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Victims Compensation Tribunal - whether error of law
LEGISLATION CITED:	Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996
CASES CITED:	Bridgman v The Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2008] NSWDC 153 Beale v The Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 East Side Scaffolding v Kazic [2008] NSWCA 146 Pettit v Dunkley (1971) NSWLR 176
PARTIES:	Pamela Joan Budd (Plaintiff) Victims Compensation Fund Corporation (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	5377 of 2008
COUNSEL:	G McGrath (Plaintiff) J McAteer, solicitor (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Remington & Co Solicitors (Plaintiff) Victims Compensation Fund Advocacy Unit (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This appears to be an application by the plaintiff for an order that an appeal from a decision of the Victims Compensation Tribunal be upheld. The orders sought appear to constitute an appeal, and if so, pursuant to s 39(1) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996, the leave of this court is required, and the appeal can only be on a question of law.

2 While there appears to be a defect in the form of the application, in the course of argument, I was able to determine from the grounds set out in the summons and the material tendered by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff alleges that the decision of the Tribunal, constituted in this case by its chairperson on 5 August 2008, contains three alleged errors of law.

3 These are first, an error in failing to consider the plaintiff’s application for leave to call further evidence relating to the alleged loss of teeth as a result of an act of violence. Two, an error in failing to hold that there was sufficient evidence that the act of violence caused, in whole or part, a category 2 chronic psychological or psychiatric disorder. And three, and I find little to distinguish this from the second alleged error, in the alternative, the Tribunal failed to give sufficient reasons for holding that the act of violence did not cause a category 2 chronic psychological or psychiatric disorder.

4 The history of this matter is that the plaintiff, Ms Budd, alleged that certain acts by her former neighbour, Ms Gardiner, constituted acts of violence, and that this act or acts of violence exacerbated a psychological disorder, which she claims now to be “severely disabling”. The matter was considered by a compensation assessor and a report was prepared by a Mr Jeremy Freeman, a clinical psychologist who is an Approved Report Writer appointed under the Act. Mr Freeman interviewed the plaintiff at her home, because one of the matters of which she complains is agoraphobia. After considering this report, Assessor Stephenson found:

“Overall, based on the evidence before me I am not persuaded that the applicant was more likely than not the victim of an assault, deemed or otherwise,…