Legal Research
Cases
Madigan v XYZ

Madigan v XYZ

Case [2022] WADC 123 23 December 2022

Mental and Nervous Shock

Criminal Law

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   MADIGAN -v- XYZ [2022] WADC 123
CORAM:   LEMONIS DCJ
HEARD:   21 SEPTEMBER & 14 OCTOBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   23 DECEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   APP 93 of 2021
MATTER: IN THE MATTER OF Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   PETER DAMIAN MADIGAN
Appellant
AND
XYZ
First Respondent
KOLYN JASON CORBETT
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   C F HOLYOAK-ROBERTS
File Number            :   CIC 995/2018

Catchwords:

Appellant subject of two different sets of offences occurring at the same place, but involving different offenders and being approximately a week apart - Relevant claim subject of appeal arises from the first incident - Appellant suffers nervous and mental shock as a result of both incidents - Extent to which, if at all, the compensation award for the offences the subject of the first incident should be reduced because of the second incident - Whether mental and nervous shock from first incident resulted in economic loss - Extent of physical injuries suffered in the first incident

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)
District Court of Western Australia 1969 (WA)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)

Result:

Award increased

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr N Morrissey
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr C Arnold appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Bradford Legal
First Respondent	:	Not applicable
Second Respondent	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 1981
ATB v LA [2021] WADC 64
Blackwell v Warren [2018] WADC 127
DC v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 198
Mallard v Mallard [2022] WADC 71
Mangisi v Boehm [2021] WADC 76
Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 131
Player v Avery [2022] WASCA 147
Pyne v Wilkenfeld (1981) 26 SASR 441
Re MJM [2021] WADC 104
Re Sunjich [2022] WADC 66
Savic v Duric [2021] WADC 53
State Government Insurance Commission v Oakley (1990) 10 MVR 570
State of New South Wales v Skinner [2022] NSWCA 9
TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
Woodward v Davies [2021] WADC 73

LEMONIS DCJ:

Mr Madigan was the victim of three criminal offences committed on 25 May 2015 (the first incident) by each of the first and second respondents and Mr Leonard Corbett who I will call the third offender.[1]
[1] Mr Leonard Corbett was initially named as the third respondent on the Notice of Appeal. By order made 11 March 2022, the Notice of Appeal was amended to delete the reference to him.
The first respondent committed the offence of stealing and assault occasioning bodily harm. The second respondent committed the offence of stealing and the third offender also committed the offence of stealing. The offences were all committed…

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 Madigan v XYZ

Details

AGLC: Madigan v XYZ [2022] WADC 123
Case: [2022] WADC 123
Decision Date: 23 DECEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Madigan v XYZ involved an appeal by the appellant against a decision to reduce compensation awarded for the first of two separate offences that occurred at the same location but involved different offenders and were approximately a week apart. The appellant suffered nervous and mental shock as a result of both incidents, and the appeal was concerned with whether the compensation award for the first incident should be reduced due to the occurrence of the second incident. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the mental and nervous shock from the first incident resulted in economic loss and the extent of the physical injuries suffered in the first incident.

The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which the compensation award for the first incident should be reduced if at all, considering the occurrence of the second incident. The court had to assess whether the appellant's nervous and mental shock from the first incident resulted in economic loss and the extent of the physical injuries sustained in the first incident. The court also needed to consider the relationship between the two incidents and their respective impacts on the appellant's compensation.

The court examined the facts of the case and noted that while the two incidents were separate, they were connected in the sense that they occurred at the same location and involved the appellant. The court held that the compensation award for the first incident should not be reduced due to the occurrence of the second incident as the appellant's nervous and mental shock from the first incident resulted in economic loss. The court also found that the appellant had suffered physical injuries in the first incident. The court held that the appellant was entitled to full compensation for the first incident without any reduction due to the second incident.

The court ordered that the compensation award for the first incident should not be reduced due to the occurrence of the second incident. The appellant was entitled to full compensation for the first incident without any reduction, taking into account the economic loss resulting from the nervous and mental shock as well as the extent of the physical injuries sustained in the first incident.

Orders