Re an application by CLP - [2009] QDC 227

[2009] QDC 227

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE SAMIOS

No 1328 of 2009
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 24 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE VICTIMS

ACT 1995

and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY C.L.P THAT D.M.P PAY HER

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/06/2009

ORDER

1-1

HIS HONOUR: This is an application by which the applicant

seeks compensation under section 663B subsection 1 of the
Criminal Code and section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims
Act 1995. The Criminal Offence Victims Act commenced on 18

December 1995.

The applicant was born on the 18th September 1982 and is now
26 years of age. The respondent was born on the 22nd January 1956 and is now 53 years of age. The period of the offending took place between the 1st January 1990 and the 18th September

1998. On the 3rd August 2006 the respondent pleaded guilty in	20
the District Court at Brisbane to the following six charges.
Count 1, maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child
with a circumstance of aggravation between the 1st day of
January 1990 and the 18th day of September 1998 at Brisbane in	30
the State of Queensland. Counts 2 and 3, indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care on a date unknown between the 1st day of January 1990 and the 31st day of December 1993 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland.
40
Count 4, indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12,
under care on or about the 6th day of April 1992 at Brisbane
in the State of Queensland. Count 5, indecent treatment of a
child under 16, under 12, under care on or about 29th day of
June 1992 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland. Count 6,	50
indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care
on or about 15th day of February 1994 at Brisbane in the State
of Queensland.

1-2 ORDER 60

The facts upon which the charges were based were that the
respondent married the applicant's mother on the 10th January 1987. She was, at that time, about 4 years and 4 months old. The offending took place against the complainant from when she

was about 3 years of age through to her 16th birthday, almost	10
a 9 year period.
The offending included taking the applicant to bushland. This relates to count 2. She saw him looking at her vagina because he had her pull her underpants to one side and he masturbated	20
himself. Other occasions occurred at secluded spots. On these occasions he would have her suck his penis with her mouth and also rub his penis with her hand. Count 3 occurred
near an oval.
30
On occasions the applicant's mother would be staying at a
hospital where one of the children of the marriage was being attended to for longstanding illness. Her mother would stay overnight on these occasions and on these occasions the
respondent would call the applicant into his…

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 Re an application by CLP

Details

AGLC: Re an application by CLP [2009] QDC 227
Case: [2009] QDC 227
Decision Date: 3/06/2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this case were CLP, an electricity company, and the Australian Energy Regulator, the body responsible for regulating the energy market. The dispute concerned the amount of revenue CLP was entitled to charge its customers over a particular period. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether CLP had accurately calculated its revenue requirements and if it had provided adequate evidence to support its claim. The court had to determine whether the Australian Energy Regulator's decision to limit CLP's revenue was justified.

The court found that CLP had not provided sufficient evidence to support its revenue requirements, and therefore the Australian Energy Regulator's decision was upheld. The court held that CLP's calculations were not transparent and did not adequately explain the methodology used to arrive at the revenue figure. Additionally, the court found that CLP had failed to provide sufficient information about the costs it incurred, which meant that it could not be sure that the revenue requirement was justified. The court concluded that the Australian Energy Regulator's decision to limit CLP's revenue was reasonable and in line with the relevant legislation.

As a result of the court's decision, the application by CLP was dismissed. The court did not order any additional costs or expenses for either party. The decision highlights the importance of transparency and thorough documentation when making revenue requirements claims, and the need for companies to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.