Hipperson v Steel - [2010] QDC 370

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hipperson v Steel [2010] QDC 370
PARTIES: Paul Michael Hipperson
(applicant)
v
Daniel Thomas Steel
(respondent)
FILE NO/S: 377/10
DIVISION: Civil
PROCEEDING: Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 6 October 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 31 August 2010
JUDGE: Griffin SC DCJ
ORDER: I order the respondent to pay to the applicant by way of
compensation the sum of $22,500.00
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – GRIEVOUS BODILY
HARM - sufficiency of evidence to prove “mental or nervous
shock” – meaning in s 20 of Criminal Offence Victims
Act1995 – whether diagnosable mental disorder necessary –
whether “anxiety adjustment disorder” compensable.
COUNSEL: D C Kalle (Solicitor) for the Applicant
S Shearer for the Respondent
SOLICITORS: DK Law Solicitors for the Applicant
Carrol Fairon Solicitors for the Respondent

This is an application for compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”). The compensation claim is for injuries suffered as a result of the commission of a criminal offence, grievous bodily harm by the respondent against the applicant. The offence was committed on 5 July 2008 and the respondent was sentenced in the District Court Brisbane on 2 October 2009.
The circumstances of the offence briefly are that the applicant had attended a party with friends and as the sentencing remarks disclose, after the applicant had left the gathering, he was assaulted by a single punch to the jaw by the respondent which caused grievous bodily harm. The circumstances of the offence according to the sentencing basis was that the applicant had not provoked the offence.
The legislation provides for compensation to be paid according to a scale relative to the seriousness of the injury for a physical injury which includes an injury whereby mental or nervous shock is suffered as a consequence of the criminal act.
The respondent resists the application to the extent that any independent allowance should be made for bruising/laceration as a result of the grievous bodily harm which it is accepted caused a fracture to the jaw. I will return to this issue shortly. However, fundamentally the respondent’s argument is that no sufficient basis has been demonstrated by expert or other appropriate evidence for the court to conclude that there is an ingredient of mental or nervous shock properly compensable as a result of the offence which it is, of course, accepted by the respondent to have been committed.
As a result of the punch thrown, the applicant sustained a broken jaw, and some bruising/lacerations associated with that. Although bruising/laceration itself is separately compensable, and no doubt, makes the award of damages, if appropriately supported, a transparent one, when dealing with injuries such as bruising/laceration and other related but separate injuries. In this case I have considered whether it is appropriate for the bruising/laceration to be subsumed in the award which I propose to make for the substantial and primary physical injury, the broken jaw. I will make a…

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 Hipperson v Steel 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: [2010] QDC 370
Decision Date: 6/10/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hipperson v Steel, the applicant sought compensation for grievous bodily harm sustained during an altercation with the respondent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, Hipperson, alleged that the respondent, Steel, had caused serious injury during an incident which occurred in public. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the injuries sustained by the applicant were indeed grievous bodily harm, and if so, what the appropriate compensation should be. The court also needed to consider the extent of the injuries and their impact on the applicant's life. In assessing the claim, the court took into account medical evidence, witness statements, and the nature of the injuries.

The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered grievous bodily harm and that the injuries were significant enough to warrant compensation. In its judgment, the court noted the long-term effects of the injuries on the applicant's physical and mental health, and the impact on their ability to work and engage in daily activities. After considering all relevant factors, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $22,500.00 by way of compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order the respondent to pay to the applicant by way of

compensation the sum of $22,500.00

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:	Hipperson v Steel [2010] QDC 370
PARTIES:	Paul Michael Hipperson (applicant)
v
Daniel Thomas Steel (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	377/10
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 August 2010
JUDGE:	Griffin SC DCJ
ORDER:	I order the respondent to pay to the applicant by way of compensation the sum of $22,500.00
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM - sufficiency of evidence to prove “mental or nervous shock” – meaning in s 20 of Criminal Offence Victims Act1995 – whether diagnosable mental disorder necessary – whether “anxiety adjustment disorder” compensable.
COUNSEL:	D C Kalle (Solicitor) for the Applicant S Shearer for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	DK Law Solicitors for the Applicant
Carrol Fairon Solicitors for the Respondent