Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: FLI v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2022] NSWCATAD 281 Hearing dates: 7 October 2022 Date of orders: 13 December 2022 Decision date: 13 December 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J McAteer, Senior Member Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 52 (2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997, I order the Commissioner as administrator to provide an adequate statement of reasons in accordance with the requirements of s 49 (3) of that Act within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons for decision.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Victims Support- administrative review – whether administratively reviewable decision – whether ADR Act applies to decision of assessor – administrative review in absence of internal review - whether statement of reasons sufficient – whether request made within a reasonable time – adequacy of reasons – sufficiency of reasons – reasoning of decision maker- beneficial legislation
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Interpretation Act 1987
Cases Cited: Anthony Horden and Sons v Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
BXB v Commissioner for Victims Rights [2015] NSWCATAD 173
BWL v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2016] NSWCATAD 242
CQP v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2016] NSWCATAD 202
FCB c Commissioner of Victims Rights [2021] NSWCATAD 365 a
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) HCA 28
Soulemezis v Dudley Holdings (Pty Ltd) (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54
White v Sutherland Shire Council [21019] NSWCATAD 100 a
Category: Principal judgment Parties: FLI (Applicant)
Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Varley (Applicant)
Women’s Legal Service NSW (Applicant)
Victims Services Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00219031 Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal restricts disclosure of the name of the applicant
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
The applicant is referred to as FLI pursuant to a confidentiality order made in the proceedings on 26 August 2022. FLI seeks review of a decision of the respondent, the Commissioner of Victims Rights (the Commissioner) dated 18 May 2022.
Background to the application
-
The decision relates to an application for victims recognition under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (the Victims Act). The application seeks that the Commissioner provide a statement of reasons in accordance with Chapter 3 Part 2 Division 2 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (the ADR Act).
-
In that application to the Commissioner, FLI made an application based on being the victim of an act of violence, which occurred in the context of domestic violence. The exact specifics of the claim are not clear to the Tribunal as no documents under s 58 of the ADR Act have yet been filed by the Commissioner. However it is clear that FLI was considered by…
Continue reading Fli v Commissioner of Victims Rights
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fli v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2022] NSWCATAD 281
- Case
- [2022] NSWCATAD 281
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the decision of the assessor was an administratively reviewable decision. The court also needed to decide if the Administrative Decisions Review Act applied to the decision of the assessor. Another key issue was whether a statement of reasons was required in the absence of internal review, and if so, whether the statement provided was sufficient. The court further considered whether the applicant's request for review was made within a reasonable time and if the reasoning of the decision-maker was adequate.
In its judgment, the court determined that the decision of the assessor was indeed subject to administrative review. The court held that the Administrative Decisions Review Act applied to the decision of the assessor, as it was a decision affecting the applicant's legal rights. The court found that the Commissioner, as the administrator, was required to provide an adequate statement of reasons, which had not been sufficiently provided. The court held that the applicant's request for review was made within a reasonable time and that the reasoning of the decision-maker was inadequate. The court ordered the Commissioner to provide a statement of reasons within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons for decision.
The court's final order was that the Commissioner, as administrator, must provide an adequate statement of reasons in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Decisions Review Act within the specified timeframe.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Pursuant to s 52 (2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997, I order the Commissioner as administrator to provide an adequate statement of reasons in accordance with the requirements of s 49 (3) of that Act within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons for decision.
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.