COOPER -v- SMITH [2017] WADC 82
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2017] WADC 82 | |
| Case No: | APP:100/2015 | 12 MAY 2017 | |
| Coram: | DERRICK DCJ | 22/06/17 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed Assessor's decision reversed Application for compensation dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GARTH FRANCIS COOPER NICHOLAS LEE SMITH |
Catchwords: | Appeals Criminal injuries compensation Proved offence Whether medical costs and leave of absence pay paid by employer required to be deducted from compensation award |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA) Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) District Court Rules 2005 (WA) Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) |
Case References: | Baker v His Honour Judge Stone of the District Court of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 56 Cooper [2016] WACIC 3 Devos v James [No 2] [2013] WADC 36 Director General of Department of Transport v McKenzie [2016] WASCA 147 Gallelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145 Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48; (1961) 106 CLR 340 La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201 Mustac v Medical Board of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 128 Robertson v Baker [2014] WADC 14 Undershaft (No 1) Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 41; (2009) 175 FCR 150 |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by
- Appellant
AND
NICHOLAS LEE SMITH
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : H L PORTER
File No : CI 750 of 2015
Catchwords:
Appeals - Criminal injuries compensation - Proved offence - Whether medical costs and leave of absence pay paid by employer required to be deducted from compensation award
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)
District Court Rules 2005 (WA)
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Assessor's decision reversed
Application for compensation dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr G Stubbs
Respondent : No appearance
Amicus Curiae : Ms CA Chapman on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General
Solicitors:
Appellant : Bannister Law Group
Respondent : Not applicable
Amicus Curiae : State Solicitor of Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Baker v His Honour Judge Stone of the District Court of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 56
Cooper [2016] WACIC 3
Devos v James [No 2] [2013] WADC 36
Director General of Department of Transport v McKenzie [2016] WASCA 147
Gallelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48; (1961) 106 CLR 340
La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201
Mustac v Medical Board of Western Australia…
Continue reading Cooper v Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Cooper v Smith [2017] WADC 82
- Case
- [2017] WADC 82
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Cooper v Smith involved the applicant seeking compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2004. The applicant alleged that he had suffered injuries as a result of a crime, and was denied compensation by the assessor. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant argued that the assessor had erred in deducting certain payments from the compensation award, specifically medical costs and leave of absence pay provided by his employer. The central legal issues were whether these payments were required to be deducted from the compensation award under the Act, and if the assessor's decision was in error.
The court considered the provisions of the Act and relevant case law to determine the proper approach to compensation. The court found that the Act did not require the deduction of employer-provided benefits such as medical costs and leave of absence pay from the compensation award. The court held that the assessor had erred in law by deducting these payments, and that the applicant was entitled to compensation for his injuries. The court noted that the Act was designed to provide compensation for the actual loss suffered by the victim, and that employer-provided benefits were not intended to be deducted from the award. The court concluded that the assessor's decision was in error and should be reversed.
The court dismissed the applicant's appeal and reversed the assessor's decision. The court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation for his injuries, but that the assessor had erred in deducting certain payments from the award. The court ordered that the application for compensation be dismissed, as the applicant had not suffered any actual loss as a result of the crime. The court emphasised the importance of correctly applying the provisions of the Act to ensure that victims of crime receive the compensation to which they are entitled.
The court considered the provisions of the Act and relevant case law to determine the proper approach to compensation. The court found that the Act did not require the deduction of employer-provided benefits such as medical costs and leave of absence pay from the compensation award. The court held that the assessor had erred in law by deducting these payments, and that the applicant was entitled to compensation for his injuries. The court noted that the Act was designed to provide compensation for the actual loss suffered by the victim, and that employer-provided benefits were not intended to be deducted from the award. The court concluded that the assessor's decision was in error and should be reversed.
The court dismissed the applicant's appeal and reversed the assessor's decision. The court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation for his injuries, but that the assessor had erred in deducting certain payments from the award. The court ordered that the application for compensation be dismissed, as the applicant had not suffered any actual loss as a result of the crime. The court emphasised the importance of correctly applying the provisions of the Act to ensure that victims of crime receive the compensation to which they are entitled.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Assessor's decision reversed
Application for compensation dismissed
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.