Hooper v Territory Insurance Office - [2002] NTSC 5

Hooper v Territory Insurance Office & Anor [2002] NTSC 5
PARTIES:HOOPER, Garry James as litigation guardian for Christopher James Hooper and Jaclyn Tracey Hooper

v
TERRITORY INSURANCE OFFICE
AND
WILKIE, Ian Murdoch

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:M8 of 2001 (20108398)
DELIVERED:  10 January 2002
HEARING DATES:  24 & 30 October 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:
Motor accidents compensation – reference to Motor Accidents (Compensation) Appeal Tribunal – interpretation of s 22 of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT) – words and phrases – “relative needs and degrees of dependency of the dependent child or children” – history of legislation – assessment of proportion of fund payable.
Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT), s 22, s 22(1)(b)(ii) and s 29
Sweeney v Fitzhardinge (1906) 4 CLR 716, considered.
Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (1976) 135 CLR 616, considered.
Bull v Attorney-General (New South Wales)(1913) 17 CLR 370, followed.
Aafjes v Kearney (1975) 180 CLR 199, applied.
Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd v Reeman (1973) 128 CLR 177, applied.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:T Young
1^st Respondent:  M Grant
2^nd Respondent:  P Walsh
Solicitors:
Applicant:Michael Whelan & Assoc
1^st Respondent:  Cridlands
2^nd Respondent:  Paul Walsh
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0204
Number of pages:  26

Mar0204
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS
(COMPENSATION) APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Hooper v Territory Insurance Office & Anor [2002] NTSC 5
No. M8 of 2001 (20108398)

BETWEEN:
GARRY JAMES HOOPER
As litigation guardian for Christopher James Hooper and Jaclyn Tracey Hooper

Applicant
AND:
TERRITORY INSURANCE OFFICE

First Respondent
AND
IAN MURDOCH WILKIE
Second Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 10 January 2002)

This is a reference under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT) (“the Act”). The applicant claims to be a person aggrieved by a determination of the Board of the Territory Insurance Office made on 3 April 2001. The reference jurisdiction is found in s 29(1)(a). Any person who is aggrieved by a determination of the Board may within 21 days after being served with a copy of the determination refer the matter to the Tribunal.

He applies as litigation guardian for his two infant children. The determination was as to compensation payable under s 22 of the Act arising from the death of his former wife, the mother of the children.
Kim Elizabeth Wilkie, then Dawking, (“the deceased”) and the applicant were married in 1987. They were the parents of the two children, Christopher, aged 11, and Jaclyn, aged 9 (“the children”). In 1998 the deceased and the applicant separated and the children went with the applicant to Sydney. Shortly thereafter the deceased formed a relationship with the second respondent (“Mr Wilkie”). In January 1999 the deceased and Mr Wilkie purchased a house in Katherine in order to live there together with the children. They returned to Katherine. The marriage between the deceased and the…

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 Hooper v Territory Insurance Office 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: [2002] NTSC 5
Decision Date: 10 January 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hooper v Territory Insurance Office was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The matter involved a dispute over the interpretation of section 22 of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT) in relation to the distribution of compensation funds following a motor accident. The central issue was whether the court should consider the relative needs and degrees of dependency of the dependent children of the injured party when determining the proportion of the fund payable to each child.

The court was required to decide the extent to which the history of the legislation and the statutory language of "relative needs and degrees of dependency of the dependent child or children" influenced the assessment of the proportion of the fund. The court needed to determine whether this phrase required a comprehensive assessment of the individual needs and dependency levels of each child or if a simpler approach was sufficient. The dispute centred on whether the term "relative needs and degrees of dependency" mandated a detailed comparative analysis or if it could be interpreted more broadly.

The court examined the legislative history and the plain meaning of the statutory language. It concluded that the phrase "relative needs and degrees of dependency" did not necessarily require an exhaustive comparison of each child's needs and dependency levels. Instead, the court found that a reasonable assessment, taking into account the overall circumstances of the children, was sufficient. The court held that a detailed comparative analysis was not mandatory unless the circumstances of the children were significantly different. This decision provided a balanced approach, recognising the need for a fair distribution of funds while avoiding an overly burdensome process.

The court's ruling provided clarity on the interpretation of section 22, allowing for a practical assessment of the needs and dependency of dependent children. The final orders reflected the court's decision, affirming that the compensation fund should be distributed based on a reasonable assessment of the relative needs and degrees of dependency, without requiring an exhaustive comparative analysis unless necessary.

Orders