Ramaiya v Tanner - [2012] QDC 111

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ramaiya v Tanner [2012] QDC 111

PARTIES:

PATRICIA SHARLEEN RAMAIYA
(applicant)

v

SHERRI-ANN TANNER
(respondent)

FILE NO:

43/2010

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

25 May, 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

16 February 2012

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Sherri-Ann Tanner pay the applicant Patricia Sharleen Ramaiya the sum of $15,750.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION – Queensland – General – assault occasioning bodily harm – bruising and laceration – facial disfigurement and bodily scarring – mental or nervous shock

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995(Qld)

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld)

CASES:

Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd & Ors [2000] QCA 178

Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214

COUNSEL:

F Muirhead (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

The respondent, Sherri-Ann Tanner, pleaded guilty in the Beenleigh District Court to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in respect of the applicant Patricia Sharleen Ramaiya. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months probation with no conviction recorded.[1]
[1]Exhibit A (Certificate of Conviction), Affidavit of Melissa Lo sworn 20 December 2011.

Leave to proceed

The application was filed on 29 January 2010 by the applicant’s former solicitors, who it appears took no steps to progress the proceedings. The file was taken over by Legal Aid Queensland in October 2011[2] and the matter then proceeded promptly to hearing. In the light of the factors referred to in Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd & Ors [2000] QCA 178, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant leave to proceed pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) r. 389.
[2]Affidavit of Patricia Sharleen Ramaiya sworn 4 January 2012, para 34.

Facts

The applicant and the respondent were at the time of the offence (20 September 2007) neighbours in Kingston. There was a history of “bad blood” between them. The applicant was having a party and at some stage during the evening, she was outside her residence. The respondent then became involved in an altercation with the applicant, punching her a number of times, one punch connecting with the applicant’s face, causing bruising below her left eye. The applicant at one stage dropped to her knee in an attempt to protect and defend herself, and suffered a cut to the knee which required stitches.[3]
[3]Exhibit B (submissions on sentence), p. 1-3, Affidavit of Melissa Lo sworn 20 December 2011.

Injuries

The applicant suffered bruising below her left eye, and a cut on the knee requiring stitches.[4]
[4]Exhibit B, p. 1-3, Affidavit of Melissa Lo sworn 20 December 2011.

The Law

The application in these proceedings was filed on 29 January 2010, subsequent to the repeal of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (COVA) by the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (VOCAA) which commenced…

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 Ramaiya v Tanner

Details

AGLC: Ramaiya v Tanner [2012] QDC 111
Case: [2012] QDC 111
Decision Date: 25 May, 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Patricia Sharleen Ramaiya, the applicant, and Sherri-Ann Tanner, the respondent. The dispute arose from an incident where the respondent allegedly assaulted the applicant, causing physical and emotional harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the applicant, which she breached, resulting in the applicant's injuries. The court was also required to determine the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant for the injuries suffered.

The court found that the respondent owed a duty of care to the applicant and that this duty was breached. The court determined that the injuries sustained by the applicant were a direct result of the respondent's actions. The court assessed the applicant's physical injuries, including bruising, lacerations, facial disfigurement, and scarring, as well as the emotional and psychological impact of the assault. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation for her injuries and awarded her the sum of $15,750. The court emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions and ensuring that victims of assault receive appropriate compensation for their injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Sherri-Ann Tanner pay the applicant Patricia Sharleen Ramaiya the sum of $15,750.

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:	Ramaiya v Tanner [2012] QDC 111
PARTIES:	PATRICIA SHARLEEN RAMAIYA (applicant) v SHERRI-ANN TANNER (respondent)
FILE NO:	43/2010
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	25 May, 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	16 February 2012
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent Sherri-Ann Tanner pay the applicant Patricia Sharleen Ramaiya the sum of $15,750.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION – Queensland – General – assault occasioning bodily harm – bruising and laceration – facial disfigurement and bodily scarring – mental or nervous shock
LEGISLATION:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995(Qld) Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld)
CASES:	Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd & Ors [2000] QCA 178 Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214
COUNSEL:	F Muirhead (solicitor) for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant No appearance for the respondent