Forster v. Forster

The case of Forster v. Forster involved a claim for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 by Blazenka Forster, the victim, against her estranged husband, Warren Leslie Forster, who had shot her in her florist shop. The incident occurred when the respondent placed a box containing a rifle on the counter, pointed it in the direction of the applicant, and discharged the weapon, causing significant injuries. The physical injuries included a gunshot wound to the right breast, which penetrated the diaphragm and caused a laceration to the liver, as well as bruising to the left shoulder. The applicant also experienced scarring from the wound and the surgical procedure, and she developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the attack.

The primary legal issue before the court was the quantification of the applicant's non-economic losses and the appropriate compensation to be awarded under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The court had to assess the severity of the applicant's physical injuries, scarring, and PTSD, and determine the corresponding compensation for each aspect of her injuries. The court also had to consider the impact of the attack on the applicant's lifestyle, self-esteem, and overall well-being.

In determining the appropriate compensation, the court considered the medical evidence provided by Dr. Moran, an orthopaedic surgeon, who assessed the loss of use of the left arm at 5%, and Dr. Dixon, a plastic surgeon, who provided an assessment of the scarring. Additionally, the court took into account the psychiatric evidence from Dr. McGuire, who diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and assessed the severity of her symptoms. The court found the applicant's PTSD to be in the lower range of severe, with a 20% assessment, and the gunshot wound to be in the high moderate range, with a 16% assessment. The bruising to the shoulder was assessed within the minor to moderate range, with an 8% assessment. The scarring was assessed at 10% rather than the 20% suggested by the applicant's submissions. The total compensation awarded was $40,500.

The court made an award of $40,500 to the applicant for her non-economic losses, which included the physical injuries, scarring, and PTSD. The court noted that the applicant had previously claimed economic loss of approximately $45,000, but the court was precluded from making any order for economic loss as the principles applicable to common law damages were not applicable to the assessment of compensation under the Act.