Marshall v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation - [2000] NSWDC 8

New South Wales

District Court

CITATION: Marshall v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2000] NSWDC 8

TRIBUNAL: Victims Compensation Tribunal

PARTIES: Kathleen Marshall
Victims Compensation Fund Corporation

FILE NUMBER(S): 60 of 1999

CORAM: Graham DCJ

CATCHWORDS: exacerbation of pre-existing condition - Schedule 1 - s38(3) - special grounds :- Clause 4 of Schedule 1

LEGISLATION CITED: Victims Compensation Act 1996
Victims Compensation Act 1987

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING: 15/3/00

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15 March 2000

JUDGMENT:

DCZ818 EMM-F2

~15/03/00 3

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for leave to appeal and (if that is successful) an appeal against a determination of the Victims Compensation Tribunal.
The appeal is governed by the provisions of the Victims Compensation Act 1996.
So far as the leave to appeal issue is concerned, the respondent is unable to point to any prejudice which would flow from the grant of leave. The period of time is not great and, in the circumstances, it would be appropriate to grant leave to appeal.
Four questions of law are posed for the consideration of the court on appeal. Those questions are amplified in the proposed Notice of Appeal but I think are more conveniently specified in paragraph two of the application for leave to appeal.
Appeals to the District Court under the 1996 Act, are appeals which are available on a question of law only, that is on a question of law arising in any determination of an application by the tribunal. See s 39. This contrasts with the procedure under the previous legislation of 1987 which provided for an appeal by way of hearing de novo.
The court is restricted as to the orders which may be made by subsection 5 and as to categories of questions of applications which may be the subject of appeal in subsections 3 and 4, to the extent that leave is necessary for an appeal to be brought to the court. This is an appropriate case in which leave should be granted. In a nutshell the applicant was unsuccessful when the matter was dealt with by a compensation assessor and his determination was made on 13 August 1998. An appeal was brought to the Victims Compensation Tribunal which published its reasons for appeal determination on 20 May 1999.
The original application related to a single act of violence being an assault occasioning actual bodily harm which was perpetrated on the appellant by her former de facto partner on 7 March 1996.
It appears from the evidence which was placed before the assessor that there had been a lengthy and abusive relationship during which it is asserted that a number of serious acts of assault took place at the hands of the appellant's partner. The evidence also indicated prior childhood problems on the part of the appellant and a significant piece of material, both in the assessor's determination and in the reasons for appeal determination, appears in a psychologist's report dated 28 July 1997.
Whilst it is clear that that report generally asserts…

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 Marshall v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation 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: [2000] NSWDC 8
Decision Date: 15 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Marshall v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation, the court was called upon to determine whether the exacerbation of a pre-existing medical condition could be considered a compensable injury under the Victims Compensation Fund Act. The dispute involved the applicant, Marshall, who sought compensation for the worsening of a pre-existing condition which he attributed to his employment conditions, against the fund. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to address the interpretation of the term "injury" as defined in the Act, specifically under Schedule 1, section 38(3), and Clause 4 of Schedule 1. The central legal issue was whether the aggravation of a pre-existing condition, which did not arise directly from the employment, could be considered a compensable injury under the special grounds outlined in the legislation. This interpretation hinged on the wording of the statute and the intention of the legislation as it pertained to compensable injuries.

The court examined the statutory language and legislative history, ultimately concluding that the term "injury" in the context of the Act did not include the exacerbation of a pre-existing condition that was not directly caused by the employment. The court held that the special grounds for compensation did not extend to such exacerbations, as they were not considered "injuries" under the Act. This interpretation was consistent with the legislative intent to provide compensation for injuries arising from the employment rather than pre-existing conditions that were merely exacerbated. Consequently, the application for compensation was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for compensation be dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The court clarified that the decision was based solely on the statutory interpretation and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the applicant's case.

Orders