MAJOK -v- KORYIOM [2017] WADC 157

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2017] WADC 157
Case No:	APP:100/2016	Heard:	8 SEPTEMBER 2017
Coram:	DAVIS DCJ	Delivered:	14/12/17
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Compensation award increased
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER GATIETE MAJOK PETER JONGLIEI KORYIOM
Catchwords:	Criminal injuries compensation Appeal from award on ground of inadequacy Further evidence admitted Mental and nervous shock Psychiatric injury Causation issues Future treatment Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
Case References:	A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481 B v W (1989) 6 SR(WA) 79 DNA v Britten (1995) 14 SR(WA) 325 Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666 JY [2013] WADC 187 McDavitt v McDavitt [No 2] [2013] WADC 198 MJN v MAJS (2003) 35 SR (WA) 219 Re Dunne [2014] WADC 131 Re PK (by her next friend the Public Trustee) [2014] WADC 139 Re Tilbury [2010] WADC 46 S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452 Zadeh [2015] WADC 136

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : MAJOK -v- KORYIOM [2017] WADC 157 CORAM : DAVIS DCJ HEARD : 8 SEPTEMBER 2017 DELIVERED : 14 DECEMBER 2017 FILE NO/S : APP 100 of 2016 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 BETWEEN : PETER GATIETE MAJOK

Appellant

AND

PETER JONGLIEI KORYIOM

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : H L PORTER

Citation : MAJOK [2016] WACIC 13

File No : CI 000121 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal from award on ground of inadequacy - Further evidence admitted - Mental and nervous shock - Psychiatric injury - Causation issues - Future treatment - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

Result:

Appeal allowed

Compensation award increased

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A A Nolan

Respondent : No appearance

Amicus Curiae

: Ms S Smith appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant : Trewin Norman & Co

Respondent : No appearance

Amicus Curiae

: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
B v W (1989) 6 SR(WA) 79
DNA v Britten (1995) 14 SR(WA) 325
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666
JY [2013] WADC 187
McDavitt v McDavitt [No 2] [2013] WADC 198
MJN v MAJS (2003) 35 SR (WA) 219
Re Bianchi [2012] WADC 147
Re Dunne [2014] WADC 131
Re PK (by her next friend the Public Trustee) [2014] WADC 139
Re Tilbury [2010] WADC 46
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
Zadeh [2015] WADC 136

1 DAVIS DCJ: The appellant, Mr Majok, who is now 27 years old, was seriously assaulted by the respondent on 13 April 2013. For this assault the respondent…

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 Majok v Koryiom

Details

AGLC: Majok v Koryiom [2017] WADC 157
Case: [2017] WADC 157
Decision Date: 14 DECEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Majok v Koryiom involved an appeal by the applicant against a decision regarding the amount of compensation awarded for injuries sustained as a result of criminal activity. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate and sought a higher amount based on the extent of the injuries and their impact on his life.

The central legal issues were whether the trial judge erred in assessing the adequacy of the compensation, particularly in relation to the applicant's mental and nervous shock, the psychiatric injury, and the causation issues. The court was also required to determine if there was sufficient evidence to warrant an increase in the compensation award. The applicant argued that additional evidence, which was not considered in the original trial, should be taken into account.

The court found that the original trial judge had indeed erred in not considering the additional evidence, which demonstrated the severity of the applicant's injuries and their ongoing impact. The court also found that the original compensation award was inadequate given the extent of the psychiatric injury and the need for future treatment. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and increased the compensation award to reflect the true extent of the applicant's injuries and their impact on his life.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Compensation award increased

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.