Devaraj v Mathutanayagam - [2007] QDC 116

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Devaraj v Mathutanayagam [2007] QDC 116

PARTIES:

ARUNA DEVARAJ

(Applicant)

V

SURENDARAN MATHUTANAYAGAM

(AKA ISAAC SURENDARAN)

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

261/07

DIVISION:

Civil jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 May 2007

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $24,000.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 15 June 2004.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – where applicant assaulted on a number of occasions – where applicant suffered burst eardrum, bruising and fractured finger – where applicant diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder – whether single or multiple incident.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 26 (1).

Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.

COUNSEL:

Mr C. Reid for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Gabriel Ruddy & Garrett for the applicant.

Introduction:

The applicant, Aruna Devaraj claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for bodily injury she sustained arising out of the criminal conduct of the respondent, Surendaran Mathutanayagam, who was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 15 June 2004 of a number of offences including two counts of common assault; one count of burglary with circumstances of aggravation; one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of stealing from the person.

In accordance with the order for substituted service made by this court[1] on 30 March 2007, the applicant’s solicitors caused an advertisement to appear in the Public Notices section of The Australian newspaper on 19 April 2007 to effect service on the respondent of the material before the court. Despite that publication there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent at the hearing.
[1] See affidavit of Christopher Michael O’Connor filed by leave on 21 May 2007.

The application for compensation is made pursuant to s 24 of the Act and is supported by the following material:-

(a) the affidavits with exhibits of the applicant sworn 18 January 2007 and 29 March 2007 and filed in this court on 29 January 2007 and 30 March 2007 respectively;

(b) the affidavit with exhibit of Dr Barbara McGuire, Psychiatrist, sworn 22 January 2007 and filed in this court on 29 January 2007;

(c) the affidavit with exhibit of Dr Greg Apel, Psychiatrist, sworn 23 January 2007 and filed in this court on 29 January 2007; and

(d) the affidavit of substituted service with exhibit of Christopher Michael O’Connor, Articled Clerk, sworn 21 May 2007 and filed by leave in this court on 21 May 2007.

Facts:

The respondent, who at the relevant time was the applicant’s husband, assaulted the applicant on a number of occasions as set out in the material before the court by striking her “… around the face and ears with his open hands and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Devaraj v Mathutanayagam 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] QDC 116
Decision Date: 25 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Devaraj v Mathutanayagam, the applicant, Devaraj, sought compensation from the respondent, Mathutanayagam, for injuries sustained during a series of assaults. The District Court of Queensland was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of compensation. The central issue was whether the injuries should be treated as stemming from a single incident or multiple incidents. This distinction was crucial because it would affect the quantum of compensation awarded.

The court examined the nature and extent of the injuries, which included a burst eardrum, bruising, a fractured finger, and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The court considered whether the injuries should be viewed as a continuous chain of events or as distinct incidents. It was determined that the assaults, while occurring on different occasions, were part of a single course of conduct that led to the injuries.

After thorough consideration, the court concluded that the injuries were the result of a single course of conduct. The court found that the injuries should be treated as a single incident for the purpose of determining the compensation. Consequently, the court awarded the applicant the sum of $24,000.00 in compensation. The court directed that this amount be paid by the respondent to the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $24,000.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 15 June 2004.

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.

CITATION:	Devaraj v Mathutanayagam [2007] QDC 116
PARTIES:	ARUNA DEVARAJ (Applicant) V SURENDARAN MATHUTANAYAGAM (AKA ISAAC SURENDARAN) (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	261/07
DIVISION:	Civil jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 May 2007
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $24,000.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 15 June 2004.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – where applicant assaulted on a number of occasions – where applicant suffered burst eardrum, bruising and fractured finger – where applicant diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder – whether single or multiple incident. Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 26 (1). Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.
COUNSEL:	Mr C. Reid for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Gabriel Ruddy & Garrett for the applicant.