GYB v Commissioner of Victims Rights - [2025] NSWCATAD 261

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: GYB v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2025] NSWCATAD 261
Hearing dates: 18 July 2025
Date of orders: 23 October 2025
Decision date: 23 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J McAteer, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) The decision of the respondent of 27 February 2025 is set aside.
(2) In substitution of that decision, the applicant is eligible for a Category C Recognition Payment in the amount of $5,000.00 for an act of violence resulting in grievous bodily harm.

Catchwords:
VICTIMS SUPPORT – Administrative law – act of violence – whether medical evidence verifies injury – sufficiency of evidence – whether applicant suffered serious bodily injury as a result of the act of violence – whether grievous bodily harm present as a result of psychological injury – meaning of grievous bodily harm – limits on beneficial interpretation

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014
Crimes Act 1900
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013
Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (repealed)

Cases Cited:
Casey v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd; Helm v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 566
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 46 FLR 409
EGM v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2020] NSWCATAD 181
Haoui v R [2008] NSWCCA 209
R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498
Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: GYB (Applicant)
Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mid North Coast Legal Centre (Applicant)
Victims Services Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00118382
Publication restriction: Section 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to the identity of the applicant.

Reasons for decision

Introduction

The applicant (GYB) has made a claim seeking a recognition payment under the victims of crime scheme. The applicant asserts that she is a victim of violent crime and has suffered injury as a result. The victims of crime scheme provides that eligible victims may recover financial grants and the provision of services under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (the VR&S Act).
In order to be eligible to recover under the scheme, a victim must either be a primary victim (the victim of an assault), or a secondary victim or family victim. As will be explained in these reasons, victims of crime must pass through various factual thresholds as set out in the VR&S Act in order to receive benefits under the scheme.
In the current matter, the applicant had previously established that she was the victim of violent crime and was entitled to a recognition payment. The initial decision maker found that the evidence was sufficient to determine that the applicant was the victim of an act of violence and was entitled to a Category D recognition payment.
The applicant contends she is eligible for a Category C recognition payment.
On internal review, the reviewer found that…

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.

Continue reading GYB v Commissioner of Victims Rights

Details

AGLC: GYB v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2025] NSWCATAD 261
Case: [2025] NSWCATAD 261
Decision Date: 23 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of GYB v Commissioner of Victims Rights, the dispute centered on the eligibility of the applicant for a Category C Recognition Payment, which is contingent upon the applicant having suffered grievous bodily harm as a result of an act of violence. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the Commissioner of Victims Rights, who had denied their eligibility for the payment based on the sufficiency of evidence provided by the applicant regarding the extent of their injuries.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of grievous bodily harm under the relevant legislation and whether the evidence provided by the applicant was sufficient to substantiate a claim of serious bodily injury. The court needed to determine if the medical evidence presented was adequate to prove that the applicant had indeed suffered grievous bodily harm, including psychological injury, as a result of the act of violence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a beneficial interpretation of the term 'grievous bodily harm' could be applied within the limits set by the legislation.

The court found that the Commissioner had erred in their assessment by not sufficiently considering the totality of the evidence presented by the applicant. The court held that the medical evidence, despite some deficiencies, was sufficient to establish that the applicant had indeed suffered grievous bodily harm. The court also noted that while grievous bodily harm includes serious psychological injury, the term should not be interpreted in a manner that exceeds the legislative intent. Consequently, the court set aside the Commissioner's decision and substituted it with a ruling that the applicant was eligible for a Category C Recognition Payment of $5,000.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The decision of the respondent of 27 February 2025 is set aside.

(2) In substitution of that decision, the applicant is eligible for a Category C Recognition Payment in the amount of $5,000.00 for an act of violence resulting in grievous bodily harm.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	GYB v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2025] NSWCATAD 261
Hearing dates:	18 July 2025
Date of orders:	23 October 2025
Decision date:	23 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	J McAteer, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) The decision of the respondent of 27 February 2025 is set aside. (2) In substitution of that decision, the applicant is eligible for a Category C Recognition Payment in the amount of $5,000.00 for an act of violence resulting in grievous bodily harm.
Catchwords:	VICTIMS SUPPORT – Administrative law – act of violence – whether medical evidence verifies injury – sufficiency of evidence – whether applicant suffered serious bodily injury as a result of the act of violence – whether grievous bodily harm present as a result of psychological injury – meaning of grievous bodily harm – limits on beneficial interpretation
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 Crimes Act 1900 Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (repealed)
Cases Cited:	Casey v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd; Helm v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 566 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 46 FLR 409 EGM v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2020] NSWCATAD 181 Haoui v R [2008] NSWCCA 209 R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	GYB (Applicant) Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mid North Coast Legal Centre (Applicant) Victims Services Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/00118382
Publication restriction:	Section 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to the identity of the applicant.